Various Measures

and also

Quorum being present, the committee on foreign affairs will come to order, I would ask everybody to rise. Join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The committee is meeting today for consideration of four measures. The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes may be rolled and may recess the committee at any point without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to house rules, I request that members have the opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may be produced on t- any of today's measures and also without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H R nine zero eight six, the Foreign Service Modernization Act. The bill was circulated in advance and the clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine zero eight six, to amend the Foreign Service Act of nineteen eighty, to modify and improve that act.

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with and the bill is considered read, and open to amendment at any point. I now recognize the Chairman of the subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Representative Lawler, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my bill, the Foreign Service Modernization Act, and I thank you uh for entrusting me with this process. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach to a part of government that Congress has not taken a good hard look at in more than four decades. Foreign Service officers are on the front lines of American diplomacy. Every day they assist American citizens and businesses abroad, build relationships with foreign governments, promote our economic interests, and work to prevent conflicts before they escalate into crises. They won't fall asleep. Their work is essential to advancing our national security and protecting American interests around the world. Oh wow, that's great. But while the mission remains vital, The world has changed dramatically since the Foreign Service Act was last updated in nineteen eighty. Now we are confronting increased competition from adversaries like China Exactly. and working to strengthen relationships with partners in the Middle East. Additionally, emerging technologies are reshaping international affairs, sparking new economic and security challenges that require a modern diplomatic workforce. Our foreign service should reflect those changes. The Foreign Service Modernization Act is designed to ensure that our diplomatic institutions are prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. It updates authorities that have remained largely unchanged for decades, strengthens accountability, improves workforce management, and helps ensure that our diplomats are equipped to advance American interests in an increasingly competitive global environment. Most importantly, this bill clarifies a simple but fundamental principle. Diplomacy is foreign policy. That means our diplomatic institutions should remain focused on advancing interests of the United States, protecting American citizens, strengthening our economy, and promoting our national security. It means ensuring that taxpayer resources are directed towards clear strategic objectives and measurable outcomes. The Foreign Service Modernization Act represents an important step towards achieving those goals. It will help ensure that America's diplomatic corps remains agile, accountable, and focused on the challenges that matter most to our nation's security and prosperity. My legislation also provides ambassadors with increased authorities over their posts, where they know best. Additionally, it trials a diplomatic reserve corps to deploy diplomats during times of emergencies. Importantly, the bill enhances career development and training opportunities for our diplomats and provides more streamlined pathways for veterans to join the foreign service. This bill comes after months of hearings and round tables to better understand the needs of our diplomats. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation and strengthen the institutions that represent the United States around the world. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I yield back. But before I do, I just want to submit for the record a letter, uh, from the American Academy of Diplomacy supporting this legislation.

Not objection. You're officially yielded back now? That's it?

That's it.

Very good. That was anticlimactic. So, I thought there was, you know, just something more. All right. Proud to yield a couple of minutes to the ranking member from New York, Representative Meeks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at the outset I urge my colleagues to support this Foreign Service Modernization Act. This legislation includes needed provisions focused on equipping our diplomats with the knowledge and skills necessary to advance our US interests and values, in this century. The bill improves training opportunities for foreign service officers in critical minerals and artificial intelligence and other technologies. It helps officers hone their language skills. The bill clarifies the importance of ensuring the State Department upholds its commitment to hiring the next generation of diplomats through the Pickering, Rangel, Payne and Veterans Innovation Fellowships. We owe our nation's diplomats better than unfounded attacks on their patriotism or slashing of the budgets that support their work. State Department foreign service officers have been putting America first long before it became a slogan. And we should be, and we should be doing all that we can to ensure that our State Department remains the world's premier diplomatic corps. That is why I will keep pressing for stronger provisions to address the Trump administration's arbitrary reduction in force from July twenty fifth July twenty twenty five its crisis management failure during the start of the war in Iran and its ongoing efforts to sideline experts in place of loyalists I also look forward to continuing to work with congressional colleagues and the Department of State as this bill moves forward to further refine this legislation to ensure it meets real needs in a very achievable way. But with that, let me just say and thank Chairman Mast and Representative Lawler for their work in working collectively in pursuing a bipartisan bill to better prepare the dedicated public servants of our foreign service, uh, excel, so they can excel in a rapidly changing international landscape. And I am prepared uh to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ranking member yields back. Any further discussion? Recognize myself. I support this bill. This legislation to say the least is long overdue. I know the ranking member has a little more gray hair than I do, but this is the first time that it's been done in my lifetime. Not not in your lifetime, but in my lifetime. Uh, so basically in fifty uh fifty years. And it does a number of important things. It does strengthen the leadership, the management, uh the oversight throughout the foreign service, while providing our diplomats with tools and authorities that they need to meet today's challenges, which are different than when uh the Foreign Service Act was initially passed. It restores mission focus. It reinforces accountability. It helps ensure that American diplomacy remains professional, effective, and firmly committed to advancing the national interest of the United States of America, number one. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And I ask uh one more time, uh is there any further discussion? Anybody wish to be recognized? Very good. There being no further uh there being no further discussion, uh we will move to amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment? Very good. Thank you for your help on that. There being no further amendments, I move that the committee report H R nine zero eight six to the house with a favorable recommendation all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those

Aye.

opposed signify by saying no opinion of the chair the ayes have it and

Mr. Chair, I request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested, the motion is agreed to. Roll call vote uh pursuant to the chair's previous announcement will be postponed. Thank you. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H R nine zero six two, the Boost American Business Act. The bill was circulated in advance and the clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine zero six two. To increase the capacity and effectiveness of the department in supporting American businesses,

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. And uh I will recognize the ranking member for any opening statement that you may have.

I want Miss Young, it's her bill. Kim Young.

Would you like to to begin, Miss Kim?

Yes.

You may begin, by all means.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. In two thousand seventeen, President Trump said, "For the first time, American strategy recognizes that economic security is national security. Economic vitality, growth, and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad. An American foreign first pol- America first foreign policy demands that we prioritize commer commercial diplomacy. Commercial diplomacy helps American businesses gain market access abroad, levels the playing field so they can compete and win, and protects US industries and jobs from predatory actors who threaten our national security. Since nineteen seventy-nine, the Commerce Department has held primary responsibility for commercial diplomacy, yet it has never been a priority. At its peak, the foreign commercial service was three percent of commerce's workforce. Successive d- administrations have cut and silenced it. Let me point to this graphic. Over the past decade, you can see the decline there. Today, the FCS has roughly two hundred personnel and is present in less than half of US overseas posts. There is no FCS officer in uh Madagascar where McCormick and company which is located in Mister Ozersky's district, sources is vanilla beans. There is no FCS officer in Jamaica where Price Smart, located in Mrs. Jacob's district, has its warehouses. There is no FCS officer in the Bahamas where Seacorps island lines and Crowley Maritime, located in Mister moskowitz district conduct major operations and there is no fcs officer in guiana guiana a major expert destination for abut laboratories which is located in mister schneider's district and there is no fcs officer trying to generate more foreign direct investment in guiana which i believe to be of interest to the ranking member commerce's fy twenty five budget justification proposed cutting the global markets business unit, which includes this FCS by more than fifty percent. Appropriators reduced it by over six percent. And the FY twenty-six proposal again called for a cut exceeding fifty percent. It's clear that commerce does not see the foreign commercial service as core to its mission. With the FCS absent from most overseas posts, the commercial diplomacy role falls to the state department's econ officers, who typically receive little or no relevant training. Members who have visited embassies have heard repeatedly from constituents that the current system fails American businesses. US companies have come to expect little, little support from our embassies. That must change. The BOOST Act offers a simple solution. Provide targeted commercial diplomacy training to State Department personnel who are already performing this work in the field. Some would argue this bill is duplicative with commerce. That argument fails. The State Department is already handling commercial diplomacy in nearly sixty percent of overseas posts, because commerce is not there. GAO reports have repeatedly documented that the status quo is not working. Others suggest simply restoring full funding to the FCS at commerce. But why invest more in an agency that has shown no sustained interest in the mission? H R nine zero six two creates a specialization within the foreign service dedicated to commercial diplomacy. It acknowledges the external economic challenges we face and the structural limits of our current bureaucracy. These new commercial diplomats are not meant to replace the foreign commercial service. They are meant to operate where the FCS does not exist. If we are serious about addressing critical minerals, energy, supply chains, AI, pharmaceuticals, and other key vulnerabilities, We must get serious about fixing this problem. I urge my colleagues to support H R nine zero six two and IL back.

Thank you, Representative Kim. Ranking member Meeks.

Unfortunately Unfortunately, I must oppose this measure. H R ninety sixty two, I'm sure Representative uh Kim uh wanted to elevate commercial diplomacy at the State Department, and that is a very important goal of which I share. But we should be honest about the risks, that as drafted, this bill could create policy confusion, duplication, inefficiency, while failing to solve the number one road block to effective commercial diplomacy, and that's staffing. The foreign service, the foreign commercial service at the Department of Commerce is the entity specifically charged with export promotion. And and that's a fact. And finding number eight from this bill notes that, and I quote, "Cuts to the foreign commercial service are inconsistent with the priorities articulated by President Trump, and contrary to the commercial diplomacy goals and objectives of the United States of America. At the committee's April hearing on commercial diplomacy, all three witnesses that agreed that they would like to see the foreign commercial service be fully funded. Unfortunately, instead of expanding the FCS and authorizing more staffing for it, H R ninety sixty two would instead establish a redundant agency at the State Department with the exact same mandate as FCS which seems both both wasteful and bad for policy coordination. Technical assistance provided by the Commercial Department said that H R ninety sixty two and I quote, "risks unnecessary duplication, confusion for US companies seeking assistance overseas, and fragmentation of the federal government's commercial engagement with foreign governments and private sector partners." This assessment should give all of us pause. In addition, creating a new cadre of commercial diplomatic offices without an authorization of appropriations risks cutting into state's already limited resources, meaning fewer staff and resources for the remaining foreign service corals. This is why the American Foreign Service Association also opposes this bill. The best way to enhance commercial diplomacy would be to fully fund and resource FCS. The Commerce Department is best positioned to continue to serve as the US government's primary commercial advocate abroad. And with its strong connections to American businesses through its network of domestic field offices and its proven record of delivering results for the American businesses and the broader US economy by putting them first. Trying to create something new. at the State Department after a year of budget cuts and chaotic reorganization and risks is bound to fail and risk wasting the American taxpayers' money. That is especially the case if such efforts are not undertaken in partnership with the agencies that are impacted. And therefore, I must oppose this measure And I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ranking member yields back. Recognize myself for a few minutes. Uh, one, to just uh speak in support of the Boost Act and and also reply to my colleague, Ranking Member Meeks. Uh, the purpose of the Boost Act is to recognize uh something that is taking place, and to make sure that those that are filling a void are educated in the appropriate way. Uh, within uh the Department of Commerce there are not enough people to work around the globe uh to fulfill the needs of what State Department Economic Officers are are filling a gap to do. And those State Department Economic Officers do not always have the same training as individuals within commerce and so it's to make sure that those individuals coming out of State Department uh have the appropriate training opportunity to have the training that they need to do their job in the most uh effective way uh as they're partnering and working with commerce abroad. And that is the goal of this, I support this. Uh I think you will accomplish that uh well through the Booth Act, and I wish to uh again just uh speak positively about it, say it's a good piece of legislation, and yield the remainder of my time to uh Miss Kim.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh ranking member makes uh pointed out a few things why as to why he couldn't support this bill, and one of that is Um, obviously we recognize uh the foreign commercial service is doing an excellent job. There is no doubt that the men and women serving in the foreign commercial service today are giving all they can to the mission. Uh, their dedication and service are to be celebrated, but this bill is not an indictment on them, this bill is a recognition that the bureaucracy supporting the foreign commercial service is failing them, and that we need to try something new to meet the enormous challenges we face. You talked about potentially uh, you know, why not fully fund the uh FCS at commerce instead. You know, fully funding the foreign commercial service at commerce would be throwing good money after bad. Commerce, as I mentioned, doesn't value the foreign commercial service and it's evidenced by its cuts in their budget every year. The president doesn't support fully funding foreign commercial service and we can all agree that commerce's track record running the foreign commercial service is suspect at best let's not pretend that shoveling a bunch of money to commerce is going to improve what we all know to be true our commercial diplomacy enterprise needs to change and this is not duplicative or wasteful that statement is false the state department is already doing commercial diplomacy in places where the foreign commercial service does not exist. Because the foreign commercial service is so small, State Department is commercial deployment in the overwhelming majority of our overseas posts and I mentioned about sixty percent of those overseas posts. So this bill proposes to train these officers to do the job that they are already doing better and moving we're not just moving the FCS, uh entirely to state department we're just asking to train the officers at the state department who are already doing this job and so um hopefully these are satisfactory and answer some of your concerns but uh if you have further questions i'm happy to address them as well

uh i appreciate the gentlelady uh and i really had meant to try to call you uh so that we can see if there's something else that we could work out i i said the spirit of what we uh have talked about in that regards but you know as i travel around the world and i talk to our individuals in the commerce department and those that are abroad and working hard and see the interaction that they have with our uh american businesses i see it being high uh and important and good uh but then when you see what's inconsistent is you know for example when uh we had the tariffs that were placed on uh many of our abroad many of our uh allies and friends across the board in our american businesses uh and then we cut um the um people in the state department uh that's the last thing that we needed to do we needed to increase their budget and not cut it uh in that regard so that we can still accomplish uh exactly what the gentlelady wants to accomplish So I I I understand I understand the spirit of what uh you're moving in, uh but I just think that it is duplicative and that uh the best way to resolve this is to try to fully fund uh a organization that has been doing, and I think the gentlelady has said it, you know, already, that they've been doing a great job. Uh, and they just need funding and not further being cut.

With the gentleman yield, and give me some time to respond, thank you very much. Um, I do appreciate you trying to talk to me. I did try to talk to you too regarding this, and we just haven't had a opportunity. And maybe we could continue to have this dialogue, but uh seriously, you did talk about why not fully fund it, and I believe I addressed that. Uh the state probably, if we talk about going down this route and uh uh pass this bill, the state may need additional uh resources, and I will support that request. if and when it comes in the next budget request. This time it hasn't been included. In fact, what we are seeing is Commerce Department trying to cut its funding that will include supporting the FCS at the Commerce Department. That is precisely the reason why we're doing what we're doing. And I believe that as the FCS budget declines at Commerce, through the budget cut, those funds could be shifted to build up the capacity at the state and um I do appreciate the spirit of you trying to work with me and my team, and I hope we can get to a level where we c- you c- you can support this bill. Thank you.

I love that Commerce and State Department are working together. To me it's very common sense, and the the point that I would hone in on is that uh sixty percent uh the, that you pointed out already, Miss Kim, sixty percent uh of the the slots for these Commerce uh for the these these commercial officers across the globe are filled by individuals from the State Department. And I think it's very common sense, obviously anybody, any economic officers coming out of the State Department have just

As a formal

an intrinsic interest in working with everybody across the embassy or the consulate that they're in. They are a part of State Department. And so to allow them to overlap with commerce, to me, just very, very common sense. I love that. Whether that number is sixty percent state and forty percent commerce individuals, or whether it flipped and it was sixty percent commerce and forty percent state department individuals it's very common sense that they work together on this. Uh they're abroad, they're overseas, they're working out of an embassy, a consulate. Let's just make sure that they have uh the best possible training to do their job that they're tasked with doing. Uh in that we've long used all the time that we allotted for debate on this. So, uh, do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none.

Could I have a little more time to No?

Mister Zinke seeks recognition.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I I yield my time, the gentlewoman from California.

Very good.

Thank you, Mister Zinke. Um, I wanted to talk about the, uh, another concern that was raised regarding the uh FCS uh you know they do have vast uh private sector network that the concern is that those uh network and the resources may be lost uh through this uh effort that we are trying to do through this legislation but let's be real honest here the current system is not serving American businesses as well as we would like and I addressed that in my opening statement I hear that from the businesses in my district And I know others hear of the same concerns from your district whenever you go home. This bill does not remove commers from any post, and it does not say the foreign commercial service is not needed or welcome. This bill simply says where the foreign commercial service is not present, those State Department employees charged with the commercial diplomacy function and must get specialized training. And I also understand the concern that the commerce departments uh may be um you know expressing concern that we are trying to move fcs entirely out of commerce maybe that's not the concern but again i'm hearing that so what agency wouldn't want to protect this equity once again commerce is putting the interest of the agency ahead of american businesses but commerce doesn't support this bill maybe because they view it as encroaching on their turf their objection is territorial not policy Ask State Department about this bill. When Under Secretary Evans testified before this committee in March, he said, our econ officers in the past have been trained to do economic reporting, and now we're shifting to a situation where commercial diplomacy is our policy. So we're working very closely with our econ officers to make sure they have the skill sets to go out there and do that commercial diplomacy. This bill codifies what state department is already contemplating. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Would the gentlelady would yield for one second?

Yes.

My, you know, my my whole thing is from what I understand, the difference between what state department does and what the commerce department does, commerce supports trade promotion. But the state department They support trade diplomacy. So there's two different things. And so the diplomacy belongs You know, and that's what the State Department is for, diplomacy. Uh, and when you talk about commerce, we wanna promote the trade that the United States has with our uh, allies and friends around the world, promote American businesses. So they really are doing two separate and distinct things in that regards. And you're back to the gentlelady.

Thank you, Mister Mix, you know, it is true that State Department um does not have the expertise or the culture to do the commercial diplomacy, but that's the problem with the status quo. Today, the State Department is being asked to fulfill the role of commercial diplomat in the overwhelming majority of our posts abroad. These people need dedicated training, which is what this bill does. And this is what we're trying to accomplish. Thank you.

I'll just add a few comments to this as well. Obviously, if you know one person, you know one person, we all have different experiences, we all have different backgrounds. We've all uh had different backgrounds in education, schools that we've gone to, uh majors that we've had. Maybe somebody studied economics, maybe somebody studied uh a mathematical science degree. Uh but individuals, the fact of the matter is individuals within state department are tasked with doing trade promotion for commerce. Uh, and again, I'll say it again, I love that Secretary Lutnik is using individuals that fall under Secretary Rubio that are already deployed abroad to to do this trade promotion. I think i- it's a great common sense uh approach to doing this in places that there is not a - an officer within commerce to do it. Again, let's just make sure that whatever their background is, whatever their you know, if they served ten, fifteen years in state department already, uh, whatever it is that they've done, I'm sure they have, you know, in many cases, experience in trade promotion, uh, or in trade diplomacy, or whatever it is that you might wanna say about them. But if they're going to be tasked with trade promotion, let's make sure that they have, uh, some formal, uh, training in that because one way or another, they are going to be tasked, uh, with that role. It's not something new being created that they're being tasked with that role. Uh, it's something that has worked out between uh, State Department and Commerce for a long window of time. Let's just make sure they're given the opportunity to have training that would be valuable to them uh as we do constantly if I were to compare this uh to the military. Uh, you know, I might be a bomb technician uh but I might be trained in some way, shape, or form uh in interrogation in somebody else. Why? Because it might be a benefit of for me uh as somebody that has to disarm a bomb to be able to interrogate somebody as well. Uh, if they have a suicide vest on them or something like that, the point I'm making is, uh, it makes sense to have people trained in multiple disciplines, uh, for a myriad of reasons, whether you're in the military, whether you're in state department, whether you're in commerce, whether you're in other places. To have that cross-training is valuable. Uh, it's not something that, uh, you can say somebody can't pick it up. You can do on-the-job training. You can learn on the job. These people are Americans. They're smart. We put them out there across the globe. Because we have a level of trust in them to be go, to be able to go out there and be mature adults and, and pick up new things that they haven't necessarily been precisely trained in. But it doesn't mean that it's not common sense to also give them a level of precise training. It's something that they're going to do. And uh, so that's my take on this. Uh, again, a number of these uh, economic officers uh, being tasked to work for commerce as well as they are abroad, uh, which I love, and let's just make sure we get them uh any any training that could be valuable to them to make them a better asset to both State Department and Commerce. In the end, that's what they will be. They will be a better asset to both the United States Department of State and the Department of Commerce, which is what we should want for anybody uh working under the beautiful fifty stars and thirteen red and white stripes, that is the flag of the United States of America. And that, any further debate? Being no further discussion of the bill, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment? Representative Komlager-Dove, uh, do you have an amendment at the desk? Clerk shall distribute the amendment and the clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment number one hundred and forty-four to H R nine zero six two, offered by Miss Komlager-Dove of California. Page ten.

Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Ms. Kamlager-Dove, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, I appreciate uh Representative Kim's focus on commercial diplomacy and her dedication to bolstering this important foreign policy tool. At the same time, I'm concerned that this administration has increasingly weaponized commercial diplomacy to advance a pay-to-play model of U.S. foreign policy and to facilitate investments that directly or indirectly enrich Trump, his family members, or his key advisors. I'm sure many of my colleagues would like to forget the fact that Trump authorized the sale of a hundred thousand Blackwell chips to G forty two, the AI company owned by the UAE national security advisor, after that same individual purchased a forty nine percent stake in Trump's crypto company or the fact that in Miami, Last year, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff drafted a twenty eight point peace plan for Ukraine, with Putin advisor Kirill Dimitriev, that prioritized Russia's conditions for ending the war. Why? Because Dimitriev reportedly promised Kushner and Witkoff billions of dollars worth of business opportunities for US companies in Russia. And that's not to mention the steady drip, drip, drip of reporting about Venezuelan oil and mining contracts being awarded to companies run by Trump donors including one firm that had been charged for bribery by the DOJ and employees a single a senior trader who contributed six million dollars to Trump's campaign this shady behavior seems to be present wherever the administration is engaging in commercial diplomacy including the South and Central Asia including in South and Central Asia. For months, Secretary Litnick, Secretary Rubio and President Trump worked to secure a tungsten mining deal for an American company in Kazakhstan, announcing the deal during the C five plus one leader summit in DC. Yet just a few months later, the Financial Times reported that a shell company backed by Eric and Donald Trump Junior took a stake took a stake in the mining company. which had secured up to one point six billion dollars in US government support from XM Bank and DFC. This evidently raises concerns that the president's family members are financially benefiting from deals paid by the US taxpayer. Given the administration's extensive pattern of corruption and graft, I think it's imperative that Congress impose guardrails to ensure that commercial diplomacy resources are not converted into a personal deal team for senior administration officials. And that's what my amendment does. It would prohibit the commercial diplomatic service from advocating for companies that are majority owned by senior administration officials. Now, I've been using examples from this administration because they are so vast and so blatantly egregious, but this amendment would stand for any administration. And I actually think this is a no-brainer amendment that we should be voting on, which is an easy yes, because in my mind, a no vote on this amendment would suggest that you support allowing corruption to continue or to happen at all. And why would anyone vote to allow corruption to continue to happen? It seems like the antithesis of Doge. As, uh, my colleague said, the status quo is not working. And let's get serious. Let's get serious about stopping and curbing and calling out corruption. I hope that we can all agree on the need to properly steward taxpayer dollars and unequivocally call out corruption and conflicts of interest by this or any administration. I urge my colleagues to support this very easy and important amendment, and I yield back.

Representative yields back. Any other members seek recognition? Ranking member Meeks.

I strongly support this amendment. I could only imagine that my colleagues on the other side would support this amendment also, if what we've been seeing now from this administration was taking place in a democratic administration. And as the gentlelady from California has clearly stated, this is applicable to democrats and republicans. This will put something in place that's common sense so that we won't have to have this debate and argument when one side is in power as opposed to the other side. This is something that would be put in place to protect the American taxpayer and to make sure that any president will not be trying to utilize a government agency, in this instance, the d- the State Department, for the benefit of personal or private companies that they have stock in. I mean, oftentimes when we see this happening, if it's in certain sectors, a person would have to recuse themselves. And not have their companies involved. I mean, this is some of the basic ethics reforms and ethics that we have for members of Congress. And it seems to me it should be the same thing for the executive branch of government. who controls and has control because they appoint the people in the State Department who heads it, et cetera. So this is just a precautionary measure, reasonable common sense measure that I think everybody should support. It's simply to make sure that the State Department, I mean let's just listen to this, the language is clear. is make simply make sure that the State Department is not engaging in commercial diplomacy on behalf of companies that are majority owned by any president or other senior US officials. Now we have seen, as the gentlelady has seen, has stated, it seems to me, you know, what we currently see taking place in the White House makes this clear what is taking place. You know, cuz we have seen the rampant corruption during this administration. But that be what it is, it's not just for this administration. This doesn't expire once he's gone. This stays into law. This safeguards the American people. So this is bigger than any precedent. This is for standards that should be in place. For every president. Every president. And then we wouldn't have to have the debates that we have back and forth. So this is really a amendment that is neutral. Or it should be neutral. It should not be an issue or a question. Because I think that if you talk to anyone, you take whoever the current president is out of this, this should be something that every member of Congress can support. to say that whoever the president is, they should not be using the State Department to engage in commercial diplomacy on behalf of the companies that they have the majority of stock in. That's all it says. And it just makes sure that there's ethics requirements in that regards for the office of the president. Plain, simple, And my estimation should be nonpartisan and something that we need to pass. You're back.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself for a moment. The ranking member speaks accurately when he says this uh amendment would cut both ways, Republican, Democrat, Independent, any political party, you name it. Uh, but I do believe that this amendment is a political stunt. It arbitrarily bars government advocacy for American companies based on a perceived political affiliation or business affiliation, uh when the fact of the matter is two things can be true at once. Uh an individual can be a majority shareholder or a shareholder in a company and can be working in government as an appointee, as an ambassador, as a cabinet official, you name it. Uh both of those things can be true at the same time. Commercial diplomats should be focused on promoting US economic interests abroad. not conducting ownership investigations to determine uh which American businesses are politically acceptable to support in my opinion. Uh, that being said, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And any further discussion? Seeing none. You're premature. Being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Kamlager-Dove. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Uh.

All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In opinion of the chair, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

As for a roll call.

A roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed until sometime later. Any further amendments? Being no further amendments. Pursuant to notice, I will not

So, there it is. We're gonna pull that out then.

Mm-hmm. Very good. Pursuant to notice, I now call up HR one nine three nine, the US Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act. The bill was circulated in advance, and the clerk shall designate the bill.

H R one nine three nine, to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to conflict in Sudan and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with, and the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. And without objection, the Meeks amendment, in the nature of a substitute, circulated to members in advance, shall be considered as read and will be treated as original text for the purpose of amendment. And I would recognize ranking member Meeks for a statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I wanna also thank you uh for including my bill uh with Africa's subcommittee ranking member Sarah Jacobs and the US engagement on S- on in the Sudanese Peace Act on today's mark-up agenda, so I really appreciate that.

Welcome.

Uh, the Sudanese people are enduring the world's largest humanitarian crises, caught in the brutal conflict between the rapid support support forces, RSF the milit the militia and the Sudanese armed forces, the SAF, as these parties fight each other for power and control of Sudan. This war has already claimed more than four hundred thousand lives, and left more than thirty four million people at risk. Greatest humanitarian disaster that's on the planet right now. The Sudanese people deserve peace. And it is my sincere conviction that this legislation can help them achieve that. And it has been our focus and my focus to make sure that we don't forget what's going on in Sudan, and that's why I thank the uh chairman for uh putting this bill and letting this bill end, this mark-up. This bill takes a comprehensive approach by imposing new sanctions on those perpetrating genocide and war crimes and other atrocities in Sudan, as well as those violating the UN arms embargo in on Darfur Darfur, and requiring the president to develop a strategy for Sudan. It also includes an important provisions offered by my colleague and friend, Representative Jonathan Jackson, that requires the secretaries of state and treasury to review whether any parties to the conflict in Sudan meet the criteria to be designated as a designated global terrorist organization, and to report back to Congress on that review and any determination. This bill will help ensure greater protection of civilians, full humanitarian access, and the participation of women and youth in stabilizing their country. All are critical to helping set Sudan back on a path toward peace. The issue of external support for the RSF and the SAF remains a key driver in this conflict. And I hope members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, and independents can work together to address this issue moving forward. This is something that we need to do. We need to show the world that this is on our front burner and not on our back burner. We must do more so that we can create leverage to bring parties to the negotiating table, both to end the violence and allow the Sudanese people to chart their own course forward. I've long been proud of Congress's bipartisan support for the Sudanese people, and I urge my colleagues to continue that today by voting yes on this legislation. You're back to bouncing my time.

Ranking member yields back. Is there any further discussion? Representative uh Representative Jacobs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'm proud to co-lead this bill alongside ranking member Meeks. For three years, the international community, including the United States, has largely ignored what's happening in Sudan. But we shouldn't look away. Sudan is facing the largest humanitarian and internal displacement crisis in the world. Over thirty-four million people need urgent humanitarian assistance. The health system has largely collapsed and aid groups, including the emergency response rooms, are struggling to operate. Many people are eating as little as one meal a day, with some resorting to eating leaves or animal feed because they can't find enough food. The situation on the ground is horrific, and it should fill everyone with deep shame. But today we have the opportunity to act. Our bill would require a new comprehensive strategy that puts the protection of civilians first, ensures humanitarian assistance can reach the people who need it, elevates the voice of civil society, and charts a path towards sustainable peace. It extends the requirement for a special envoy because ending this war requires sustained high-level American attention. It requires an assessment of any country interfering the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Sudan, including those who receive US security assistance, because this body should know if you're taking American support publicly, but then privately blocking food and medicine for civilians. And it requires a comprehensive inter-agency accounting of US made weapons in Sudan. So we can confirm whether the UAE or any other actor is selling or transferring American weapons to the RSF in Sudan. I am proud that this bill is being considered today. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can make meaningful steps to address the largest humanitarian emergency in the world. I yield back.

Representative yields back. Any further discussion? Representative Jackson.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, and thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks and Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs. Uh, this bill is urgent and necessary. It saves lives. I strongly support H. R. nineteen. thirty-nine, the US Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act, and I want to recognize the efforts and leadership of you, Chairman Meeks, to address this crisis in Sudan, the greatest humanitarian crisis that has the least amount of coverage probably in history. The protracted conflict into Sudan has created the world's gravest humanitarian crisis, displacing millions of people, devastating communities, and leaving countless civilians vulnerable to violence, hunger, and disease. The United States cannot solve this conflict alone, but it must demonstrate principled leadership. The world's worst humanitarian crisis in our lifetime is more than numbers, and not just a civil war. It's a proxy war, reinforced by regional dynamics. There have been countless cases of sexual violence against women, children horribly injured, chronically malnourished, and traumatized, and undeniable acts of genocide. This legislation reinforces America's commitment to sustain diplomatic engagement, accountability for rapid support forces and the Sudanese armed forces responsible for atrocities, and support for efforts to achieve a negotiated and durable peace. This legislation recognizes the military solutions have failed, and that lasting stability will require inclusive dialogue and coordination with regional and international partners. Supporting peace in Sudan is not only a humanitarian imperative, it is also advances US interests by promoting regional stability, reducing the risk of further displacement and extremism. In strengthening international norms against attacks on civilians, H. R. nineteen thirty nine sends a clear message that the United States stands with the people of Sudan not with those who perpetuate violence and instability. It affirms that diplomacy, accountability, and humanitarian leadership remain essential tools to Americans' foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote yes. Thank you, and I yield back.

Do any other members seek recognition? Representative Jayapal.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, for your work in advancing this bill, and I wanna thank ranking member Meeks and ranking member of the Africa sub-community Sarah Jacobs for their leadership on this bill. Um, the humanitarian crisis that we're seeing in Sudan is incredibly dire, and it's one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. The Sudanese civil war has reportedly caused over four hundred forcibly displaced more than fourteen million people, and caused a catastrophic level of hunger, with over twenty-five million people facing extreme hunger. To stop this senseless war and avert further catastrophe, the United States needs to act with the full force of its moral responsibility and diplomatic power. I was very grateful that just a few weeks ago my resolution, Hres eleven seventy-nine, recognizing the three year anniversary of the war, passed out of this committee with near unanimous support, and I hope that we can still bring that bill to the floor for passage. Ooh, that's horrible. The US engagement in Sudanese peace act represents another opportunity for this body to show the global community that the United States will not let the atrocities in Sudan go unchecked. Last week before this committee, Secretary Rubio rightly recognized that quote " Sudan has turned into a proxy war". and noted that quote " the divisions between the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have truly complicated our ability to bring the war to an end." End quote. Neither of the two belligerents in this conflict, the SAF or the RSF, could operate if it were not for the external actors putting their thumbs on the scale. The UAE has clear and proven ties with the RSF, sending weapons to an army the State Department is determined to carry out a genocide in exchange for access to Sudan's gold. On the other side, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have clearly demonstrated their support for the SAF. It is unacceptable that stated US allies are fueling starvation, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and they must be held accountable. I have welcomed the attention from the Trump administration and Special Envoy Boulos to this crisis, including their engagement with the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Unfortunately, just like we saw with the Biden administration, the issue of Sudan is taking a backseat to other conflicts. While we all understand that the bilateral relationships with between the United States and members of the Quad have been focused on the issues of Gaza and now the war in Iran, the crisis in Sudan is too urgent to be sidelined and deprioritized. Because let's be clear, we do have the leverage to stop this proxy war in Sudan should we choose to use it. And I sincerely hope that this committee will take action to utilize that leverage and prohibit the sales and licensing of major defense equipment to any country supporting either the SAF or the RSF. The strength of the Sudanese people, I've gotten to know them extremely well over the years that I've been working on this, is truly remarkable. And they deserve better than to be caught in the crossfires of warring parties who care only about control for the sake of control. In twenty nineteen, the Sudanese people rose up, and they demanded an end to the dictatorship of President Omar al-Bashir, and a transition to democracy. I was fortunate at that time to travel to Sudan on a congressional delegation, in that extremely celebratory moment, to meet with the new president and with so many leaders of the peaceful nonviolent movement, and to be able to thank the people of Sudan, who displayed enormous courage and resilience, and sacrificed so many lives and so much for that moment. Since the war broke out in twenty twenty three, I have met countless members of Sudanese civil society and Sudanese Americans who have witnessed and survived horrific atrocities. They've shared stories of repeated displacement, ethic ethnic cleansing, the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, and near starvation. as both the SAF and the RSF impede humanitarian access. And yet, even in the face of these atrocities, many of the activists who led the pro-democracy protests that led to the ousting of Bashir, have become leaders of the emergency response rooms, a network of mutual aid groups that provide basic necessities to areas that international humanitarian organizations can't reach. We cannot ignore this crisis or waste this moment. We have to protect and empower Sudanese civilians, and we have to help bring peace and democracy once again to Sudan. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself for a moment. I wanna thank Ranking Member Meek's team for working with us to get this bill to a place where it could garner bipartisan support. Uh, this is an issue that the the Trump administration been working on special envoy Boulos. Uh, I support the president's efforts and encourage state department to continue their work to address this crisis uh now with additional tools that are being authorized in this bill and eh you know as I talk about the support that we should be giving to the Sudanese people I will also just make this point as well. I just see it as an interesting point. This is a very, very real humanitarian crisis. And it does make me scratch my head why uh we don't see campus protests uh across the United States of America about this, uh very very real humanitarian protest. Uh in that, do any other members seek recognition? I see none. There being no further discussion of the bill, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment?

Does the chairman have an amendment at the desk?

Ranking member Meeks, the clerk shall distribute the amendment and the clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment number one hundred and thirty-nine to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R nineteen thirty-nine offered by Mister Meeks of New York. Page nineteen.

Not objection. Further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. And I will recognize our ranking member, Meeks, to speak on his amendment.

Yep.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment would strike a provision in section two O three of the bill, dealing with the Sudanese representation of the United Nations. I, as we've talked about along with you, continue to prioritize bringing this conflict to an end. And holding the proprietaries accountable, uh, must be a part of that. However, I also believe that multilateral institutions can play an important role in helping to end this conflict. And it is in that spirit that I offer this amendment today. And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ranking member yields back. Uh, recognize myself for a moment. support this amendment. I wanna thank ranking member Meeks for offering this amendment, which strengthens the bill in a bipartisan way. We want to ensure that the administration is in the best possible place to negotiate uh anything that can come out of this. This amendment removes language that would have tied the administration's hands and made negotiating with both parties more difficult. This amendment corrects that, and it has my full support. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. Being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by representative Meeks all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed signify by saying no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Ask for a roll call, Liz.

Nope. No. No. No. Nope.

I didn't hear you.

Are there any further amendments?

Not a lot.

Very good.

But

Are there any further amendments?

No other amendments.

There being no further amendments, I move that the committee report H R one nine three nine as amended to the house with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye, aye,

Aye.

all those opposed, signify by saying no. Pin in the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to.

Roll call. No, I asked for a roll call.

A roll call vote has now been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, that vote will also be postponed. Thank you. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H R nine zero eight seven to direct the Secretary of State to take actions with respect to certain foreign affairs matters. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H R nine zero eight seven, to direct the Secretary of State to take actions with respect to certain foreign affairs matters.

Without objection, the first reading is dispensed with, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection, the MAST amendment in the nature of a substitute circulated to members in advance shall be considered as read, and will be treated as original text for the purpose of the amendment. Ranking member Meeks, would you like to speak?

Yeah, I support the Mast Amendment in the nature of a substitute. And I wanna thank uh the Chairman and the majority for working with us to change the tenor of the bill with an A and S. We all know that the underlying bill contains provisions that probably will divide the committee but I urge us to maintain focus on strengthening our State Department and American diplomacy I believe that we should be able to do that in a bi-partisan way and with that Uh, you're back.

Recognize myself for a moment. I rise in support of H R nine zero eight seven. This bill represents my commitment to the members of this committee. This is an important step, and having votes on this provision will enable me to go forth and fight for these priorities as we move into conference of the Foreign Service Act, and the state authorization bill. There are roughly one hundred and twenty amendments, and I know we both look very forward to robust debate for the next many hours. And uh in that, we will move into into that debate of amendments. Uh do any other members seek recognition right now? Seeing none. There being no further discussion of the bill, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment? We go to

Thanks.

Representative Biggs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I wanna take a moment.

You have an amendment at the desk?

Yes.

Very good. The clerk shall distribute the amendment and the clerk shall report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed via electronic device. Um Amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute number sixty one to H R nine zero eight seven, offered by Miss Biggs of South Carolina.

Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. And I recognize Representative Biggs.

Thank you. I wanna take a moment to explain why this amendment matters not just as a policy matter, but as a statement of values about who we are as a nation and how we honor those who have sacrificed in our service. South Carolina is home to some of the finest military installations and veterans' communities in the entire country. I've said across the table from men and women who came home after multiple combat deployments, who led teams in some of the most dangerous corners of the world, who built trust with local populations and foreign partners in ways that no foreign service exam can measure and who were then told in effect that their experience didn't quite fit the mold the State Department was looking for. That is failure of our institutions, and it is one we have an obligation to correct. This provision directs the Secretary of State to award meaningful, individualized, hiring credit to veteran applicants based on the full scope of what they bring to the table. Combat deployments, overseas military service, decorations and awards earned through exceptional performance, leadership and supervisory experience, and specialized skills that translate directly to the mission requirements of the State Department. Critically, my amendment requires the secretary to evaluate each of these factors separately. Every dimension of a veteran's service deserves to be recognized on its own merits. And let me be clear about what this provision does not do. It does not replace or diminish existing veterans' preference protections under law. Preference eligible veterans retain every hiring point they are already entitled to. This legislation builds on those merit-based protections. It does not compete with them. Mister Chairman, our veterans have served on the front lines of American foreign policy in ways that no classroom or exam can replicate. An airman who served multiple overseas tours and earned decorations for exceptional service has demonstrated exactly the kind of character resilience and leadership our foreign service needs. It is time the State Department's hiring process reflects that reality and honors the sacrifices this nation asks of its finest citizens. And I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment, and I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Biggs. Ranking Member Biggs?

Yeah, I I oppose this amendment because it's duplicative of existing efforts to ensure former service members have opportunities to serve in the State Department. Uh, for those reasons I I oppose and I yield back.

Wilson.

Uh, Representative Wilson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, Chairman Brian, I asked you yourself as a veteran uh indication of uh talents and capabilities that should be recognized by our veterans. And then indeed, uh, Congresswoman Biggs is being too humble, uh, and just uh, it should be acknowledged that she herself is currently a member of the South Carolina Air National Guard. And so she knows firsthand the capabilities of our uh service members and the talents they have and so we so appreciate uh Sherry Biggs and what she means to the people of South Carolina and her support for veterans and her support for a dynamic foreign policy and capable persons to serve in the foreign service. With that I yield back and support the amendment.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself. This is one of my favorite amendments. Uh, this is an amendment that we have, uh, discussed in length. Uh, veterans across the committee have discussed this in length. Uh, it's about the, the veterans' hiring preference that exists across different federal agencies. And as we think about the State Department, we think about individuals serving abroad. And when we think about a veteran's hiring preference, so many veterans today, having spent time specifically serving abroad, serving abroad in a in a number of different ways. Maybe they served abroad in a peacetime capacity, uh maybe serving in a place like Germany, but they have experience abroad. Maybe they served abroad in a wartime capacity in uh, you know, a place like Iraq, in a place like Afghanistan for months, if not years or or many years. Uh maybe these individuals were recognized very specifically for acts of valor, in combat. Uh, maybe these individuals were wounded in combat. Uh, maybe these individuals did not serve abroad, but they did serve in the military, garnering a great amount uh of leadership skills that the State Department should be begging for. So in that, we are looking to make sure that veterans bring overseas service, leadership experience, foreign language skills, operational knowledge that directly align with the State Department mission. This amendment, it ensures that those are properly recognized and accounted for throughout the foreign service hiring process. It explicitly uh preserves merit-based hiring and existing foreign service qualification standards, so veterans receive fair consideration while maintaining the rigor and professionalism of the diplomatic corps. This is a practical, common sense step to strengthen our diplomatic workforce, frankly, uh with individuals that the State Department should be on their knees thanking God uh for these individuals that serve this country and that now would wish to go serve in the State Department veterans of the United States uh armed forces. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to get uh veterans the recognition that they deserve uh in the hiring process uh for their experiences that they have had uh in combat, overseas, and in service, and uh for the awards that they have uh received throughout their service for their their acts uh of military bravery courage and leadership, and uh make sure that that's recognized in this process. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Biggs, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Want a recorded vote?

Yes.

Would you like a recorded vote?

Yes, please.

A recorded vote has been requested. Are there any further amendments? Who we go to? Representative Biggs? Representative Biggs, you have an amendment at the desk?

Yes. I do have an amendment.

Clerk shall distribute, and the clerk shall report the amendment.

The amendment was distrib- distributed via electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine zero eight seven, offered by Miss Biggs of K- South Carolina. At the appropriate place.

Without objection, further reading of the amendment is Recognize the author of the amendment, Representative Biggs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Outer space is critical to our modern way of life. It underpins the technologies Americans rely on every single day, from GPS to weather forecasting to the communications networks that power our economy. It drives economic growth and scientific discovery, and it serves as a cornerstone of US national security and military power. During the Cold War, the United States prevailed in the space race against the Soviet Union. The challenges we face today are very different, but the mandate for American leadership in space remains exactly the same. We must continue to lead, and we must maintain our competitive edge in this increasingly contested domain. That is precisely why I'm proud to offer this amendment today, the American Space Leadership for the Twenty-Fourth Century Act. This legislation provides the State Department with the authorities it needs to lead diplomatic engagements that advance US security interest in outer space. It ensures the department's posture is proactive and not reactive in addressing current and emerging security threats, including those posed by adversaries who are rapidly developing space capabilities designed to undermine American strength. To meet these challenges head-on, my amendment strengthens coordination with like-minded nations and promotes measures to discourage adversaries, destabilizing actions in outer space. It also authorizes space security dialogues with allies and partners so we can work together to address our shared security challenges. Furthermore, this legislation requires the State Department to consult regularly with Congress on adversary space capabilities and to notify Congress of any significant changes in an adversary's space posture. While the Department of War remains rightly focused on maintaining military superiority in space, our diplomats must be equally empowered to advance American leadership in the space domain. Space is the final frontier of the twenty-first century, and America must lead, not cede it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Representative yields back. Any further discussion? Do you have discussion? Uh, Ranking Member Ocheski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I support this amendment as the space economy truly heats up with widespread the widespread advent of low earth orbit satellites around, both civil and military purposes. It is absolutely critical the US engage in diplomacy both with our allies and our a- adversaries in the space domain while maintaining a technological edge. This amendment underscores the importance of this work and therefore has my support. I yield back.

Representative Yields-Beck, recognize myself for a moment. Uh, our our adversaries are doing all they can to undermine American superiority in space because they recognize that our dominance in space is a key pillar of our military Now earlier this year the China select committee reported that the PRC operates eleven dual-use space stations in Latin America with numerous links to military wing of the CCP, the People's Liberation Army. The these nations strengthen the PLA's intelligence collection efforts and may support the PLA's war-fighting capabilities. The stakes could not be higher. Countering these efforts is not just a job for our war fighters but Our diplomats have a very serious role to play as well. This amendment will codify important State Department directives outlined in President Trump's executive order on ensuring American space superiority and give our tools that they need to carry out that very critical mission, so I urge support uh of this amendment. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none. A question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Biggs. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, may I request a roll call vote?

Roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. That vote will be postponed. Is there uh Representative Jackson, we're gonna go to your amendments, and I'll give you uh the chair f- give you the chair for a couple moments.

Clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and forty-one,

Without objection.

K.

for the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I recogn- I am recognized for my amendment for five minutes. Uh, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Mast, for your support. Um, America's foreign service officers should prioritize United States' interest above all else. My amendment would codify President Trump's efforts to ensure that foreign service training remains focused purely on advancing American sovereignty and our national security, not woke ideologies that do nothing to keep American citizens safe. As representatives of President Trump's vision, the US diplomatic corps must always put America and Americans first. Mandating America first principles training as a prerequisite for serving in any foreign post or diplomatic mission guarantees that every diplomat and agency charged with US foreign relations faithfully and uniformly advances American economic and security interest. It is past time for the United States to codify into law that America first principles and American interest should always be at the forefront of our overseas missions. I encourage every member of this committee to support this amendment, and with that, I will yield my time. Does anyone else seek recognition?

Thank you. Mr. Bix.

Yeah, I I I approve this amendment. The State Department of Foreign Service Officers have been putting America first long before it became a slogan. And the president would benefit from learning from their service to this country, their compassion, and e- and their expertise. Members of the foreign service take an oath to uphold the constitution, not to any one individual, but to the people of this great nation. And you're back to bouncing my time.

Thank you, Mister Meeks. Does anyone else seek recognition on this? Hearing none, a roll call vote, I'm sorry. There be no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Jackson of Texas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. And the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Mister Chairman, uh, may I request a roll call vote?

A roll call vote has been requested. Uh, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be best postponed. Are there any further, well, are there any further amendments? I'd like to recognize myself. I have another amendment at the desk. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed by Electronic Device.

Six one forty-two, okay, yeah.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and forty-two to HR nine zero eight seven, offered by Mister Jackson of Texas. At the end,

Without further objection, the reading of the amendment is suspended with. I am recognized myself for five minutes in support of this amendment. In nineteen twenty-four, the United States Foreign Service was created to merge the country's diplomatic and consular systems into one professional merit-based career service in response to America's expanding role on the global stage after World War One. Today, the United States maintains a network of two hundred and seventy diplomatic posts with over sixty-nine thousand personnel. With America undertaking more diplomatic efforts than ever before, we must ensure that only the best of the best are representing this great nation on the world stage. My amendment would ensure that foreign service promotions are based on an individual's merit not diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility, DEIA initiatives. Under the Biden administration, the foreign service was more focused on prioritizing radical woke ideologies than advancing America's national interest. This led to US foreign service officer promotions based solely on an individual's race and sex

Yeah, I I oppose this amendment. It would codify the Trump administration's false and dangerous lies. It has told the American people to justify firing qualified experts in place of inexperienced loyalists. Under previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, the State Department has rightly focused on ensuring its workforce was more, not less, representative of America. Ensuring that our foreign service officers reflect the diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences of Americans from all fifty states. This amendment would bring the State Department back and make it far less prepared for the complex missions of the future. It is dangerous, I believe it is short-sighted, and I believe retribution and focus and scope is there.

Mm-hmm.

And I also don't believe that this is what America is about. This is not who we are. as Americans. And you're back to bouncing my time.

Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Does anyone else seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Rep Jackson of Texas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. I would like to request a recorded vote, however. A roll call, a roll call vote has now been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and forty-three to HR nine zero.

Without objection for the reading of the amendment it's dispensed with, I am recognizing myself for five minutes in support of my On October seventh, twenty twenty three, Hamas led the deadliest attack on Israel since its independence, brutally murdering one thousand two hundred innocent people and taking another two hundred fifty hostages, including American citizens. Even more concerning is that the, the UN Office of Oversight Services confirmed that at least nine United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees staff members were involved in this horrific attack. Let me be clear, this could have been avoided. President Trump cut all funding, all US funding to UNRWA in two thousand eighteen, but President Biden restored funding to this corrupt organization almost immediately, when he took office. Thankfully, President Trump has taken decisive action to withdraw the US from UNRWA and eliminate all funding to the organization so that American taxpayer dollars, are never used to subsidize terrorism again. This amendment would build off of President Trump's efforts to hold UNRWA accountable, and ensure that US Foreign Service officers are not promoting, supporting, or advancing the work of UNRWA in any official capacity. As representatives of the United States, our Foreign Service officers should be focused on advancing America's core interests and policies, not assisting organizations that facilitate the killing of innocent citizens. The only capacity that our Foreign Service officers should be engaging with UNRWA on is to conduct investigations into its corruption. By supporting this amendment, we will ensure that the US in no way supports extremist terrorist groups like Hamas. I encourage every member of this committee to support my amendment, and with that I yield back. Does any member seek recognition on this? Mister Mikes.

I oppose this amendment as it would needlessly undermine US diplomats supporting the humanitarian response in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and throughout the region, where UNRWA is critical to supporting vulnerable communities. Prohibiting US diplomats from interacting with unrich staff across the Middle East and elsewhere uh and and Middle East where they work to support refugees' education uh health care and social service remains essential and at the moment it is irreplaceable. This amendment is short-sighted and will unnecessarily restrict our State Department from doing their job a year back.

Thank you, Mr. and Miss, Mr. Meeks. Does any member seek a recognition or cut, Mister Mass, please. Mister Chairman, thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Jackson. Appreciate that. I'm gonna speak on uh this amendment and the previous amendment as I had stepped out for a moment. So, uh on this amendment about not working with UNRWA whatsoever, to me this is one of the most common sense amendments uh that could be placed out there. We saw UNRWA's participation in the horrific October seven uh, attacks, uh, in Israel. Uh, and just for years, UNRWA has been one of the biggest, probably the bus- biggest example of waste, fraud, and abuse, uh, within the United Nations. This is a long time coming, and they should receive overwhelming support. Again, especially, uh, you know, eh, especially in light of the UNRWA individuals that were specifically working to aid, abet, and participate in the October seven attacks. Uh, absolutely no reason whatsoever to support them, and in fact there should probably be charges uh that come against many individuals that were a part of UNRWA. To speak on your previous amendment uh related to DEI not being a part of hiring, uh within the State Department, this is something that I speak to people about fairly often at home, and they they'll, you know, they might initially beg the question, " How could you be against uh, DEI in hiring, and I tell them, well, you know, when you hear that word, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion, it might sound like something that, you know, how could you be against that? But when you dig into it and you look at how this is actually put in practice, uh, it's a terrible practice. So number one, you have something that you were speaking about, Representative Jackson, which you have, you know, the, these individuals within state department that want to be hired, retained, or promoted, that are tasked with demonstrating uh how they are incorporating principles of DEI uh within their day-to-day work. And so when they do that, what kind of ridiculous programs do you get out of individuals being tasked with how they're going to promote DEI principles in their day-to-day work? That's exactly how you get the moronic, waste, fraudulent, and abusive programs of things like that I've spoke about countless times in this room. How do you get drag shows in Ecuador? You get drag shows in Ecuador because somebody is trying to promote DEI. How do you get a transgender opera in Columbia? You get a transgender opera in Columbia because somebody is trying to promote DEI so that they can be retained or they can be advanced somewhere in the State Department. How do you get a transgender job fair in Bangladesh for eight hundred thousand dollars? You get that because some person that has absolutely no business being in the State Department is trying to demonstrate how they're doing principles of DEI. And I would say, it's hard to throw a blanket of one hundred percent, but I would say about one hundred percent of the people that I've spoke to back in my community when I explained them this is what DEI actually results in, in doing and taking place they say, oh, I absolutely get that. And when you go on and you have the conversation about how people are hired, right? And DEI is looking for you to look at, okay, uh, we would like to hire somebody that is gay or is uh transgender. Well somebody tell me this, that works in any space, commercial or government. Can you go out there and ask somebody if they're gay or transgender? Is that something that any HR department in government or in the commercial world is allowed to ask? Absolutely not. So if you can't ask that, somebody tell me how in God's name you determine whether somebody that you're hiring retaining or promoting is gay or transgender. Now I'm sure we could figure some of those things out on our own, but the point is you're not allowed to ask these things. So you're not allowed to ask these things, but you're going out there and saying we should hire, retain, and promote based upon these things? Makes absolutely no sense. So very common sense amendment. I appreciate you uh offering that. And you know, in the past and previous uh debates that we've had here, I haven't gone on to, you know, ask the questions of individuals. Now, we don't have a lot of our Democrat colleagues here, but I've gone and asked the questions before. I said, " Can anybody tell me?" You know, " Am I am I black, white, uh, you know, am I uh, you know, have some kind of, you know, Pacific island in me? Do I have, uh, you know, I'm a Hispanic? And people don't know. They, they can't just look at me and say, " Oh yeah, that individual is, uh, you know, fifty percent Mexican heritage." Because you can't look at somebody and know what they are. But yet we're gonna go out there and tell the State Department that they have to hire based upon things that you can't ask. You can't say, " Well, uh, is he gay, straight, transgender?" you don't know, hopefully you know, uh, you know by knowing me, I hope that you know that the, what the answer very clearly is. But if you don't know, you're not allowed to ask in the government. So again, very common sense amendment, and uh, I support both of your amendments. So, thank you, Mister Jackson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I appreciate that. Does any other member seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Jackson of Texas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, may I request a roll call vote?

A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. I have one more amendment. I will recognize myself now. I have an amendment at the desk, and I The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and forty-four to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Mister Jackson of Texas.

Without objection for the reading of the amendment as dispensed, I rec- I recognize myself for five minutes in support of my amendment. This amendment would rec- would require that any foreign service institute, materials, or training are consistent with American values and American first principles, ensuring that foreign service trainings align with core national principles such as constitutionalism, democracy, and free market ideals guarantees that America's foreign policy remains focused on advancing our national interest. For too long the State Department has operated though its mission were has operated though uh through though its mission were to serve as the serve the to serve the world at large rather than the American people. By training our foreign service personnel to advocate for America first principles, the FSI can help prevent the subordination of US security and economic interest to multilateral institutions and global governance models that contradict American priorities. Every embassy, every consulate, and every negotiating team must understand that as an official representative of the US government your main priority should be to advance American interest. The American people deserve a State Department that works for them, and this amendment would ensure that all FSI materials are developing American diplomats that will always put America first. I urge every member of this committee to support this amendment. With that, I yield my time back. Does any member seek recognition and, Mister Makes.

I absolutely oppose this amendment. The Foreign Service Institute, which serves as a training ground for the patriotic American seeking to serve their country, already bases its curriculum on core American interests. It does not need lessons from the Trump administration on what our values are not. And I'm also concerned that the language in this amendment will be used to weaponize efforts that focus on addressing historical exclusion, which is necessary and in America's interest to instead promote loyalists under the guise of combating anti-woke policies. We have seen the consequences of this administration's irresponsible and dangerous retribution campaign against diversity. Which has left the State Department with fewer experts and unqualified officials and positions of consequence. We're seeing that taking place now with some appointments in other areas. clearly, for li- for example, national security, people who have no qualifications. And they wanna go after diversity, when this president want to appoint people with no qualifications for one of the most important positions that our government have, a year back.

Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Does any other member seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Rep Jackson of Texas. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed signify by saying no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I would like to request a roll call vote.

A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? Miss Titus?

Yes, thank you. I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number three hundred and twelve to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Miss Titus.

Without further objection, reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I am recognizing Miss Titus for five minutes, uh, in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment number three twelve to establish Foreign Service Officer Career Pathway for former USAID officers. This amendment inserts the text of my path to the Foreign Service Act uh into this bill and it was introduced with uh Senator Brian Schatz earlier this year. Those who dutifully served as USAID officers before the Trump administration wrongfully dismantled the agency included some of our most talented and skilled international affairs experts. Our national security really cannot afford to lose this valuable institutional knowledge, and that's why I'm offering this amendment. The amendment would establish a formal foreign service career pathway that allows former USAID members to be appointed at a grade and tenure status commiserate with their prior rank by removing certain eligibility requirements, waiving the foreign service officer test, and providing preferences to applicants with prior USAID experience. This would provide a smooth, non-redundant path for successful USAID employees to transition to the State Department's foreign service, acknowledging that these individuals have already proven their capabilities and skill sets. I'd like to note that the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees both endorse the bill from which this amendment is derived. In April, the New York Times found that one-third of former USAID professionals are still unemployed and fewer than half have found full-time employment. Many USAID employees specialized in specific regions and issues. Their unique experiences are critical to informing the US's responses to humanitarian emergencies around the world. This amendment would ensure that these public servants have a pathway to employment, and that the US government does not have a brain drain of their knowledge and expertise, thereby protecting our national security and expanding our global influence. I urge adoption of the amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Titus. I recognize myself for five minutes. I oppose this amendment. The State Department is in the middle of an important reorganization, one focused on delivering foreign aid more efficiently and effectively. This amendment goes against that effort. Creating a special pathway to copy and paste former USAID officers into the foreign service would drag the old way of doing business back into the State Department. For years, taxpayer dollars went to programs that did not serve the American people. Under President Trump and Secretary Rubio, that is changing. The goal is to make sure our foreign assistance advances American interest and to recognize that the best aid programs are the ones that succeed and then end. because the receiving country would no longer need our help. This amendment would interfere with that progress. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? Mister Meeks.

I strongly support this amendment to ensure that former USAID Foreign Service officers can be hired into the State Department's Foreign Service at the same rank with the same benefits they retained previously. well over a thousand USAID FSOs were fired without cause. And when I think of those individuals who were in USAID, who dedicated their lives to this country, I can recall traveling around the world and how people respected them. We wore a shirt saying " from the American people to the rest of the world". They were experts. They were trained. They were just like our individuals in the military, who dedicated themselves to this country. Men and women with expertise that benefited us and made the world a better place. But they were fired. And now they still, they're such patriots, want to work on behalf of their country. They were illegally dismantled when they're Trump illegally dismantled USAID. And what is now, this is really what the Trump has done, it's an absolute waste of taxpayer resources to force these qualified individuals to leave federal service entirely when they are there for the benefit of our country. As I said, these FSOs, they dedicated years of their lives to advancing the United States' interests overseas, uprooting their domestic lives, moving their families around the world. They deserve an opportunity to continue serving their country. This amendment gives them that. opportunity, a pathway to do just that. These are American sheroes and heroes, Americans who love this country and were treated unfairly. I thank Representative Titus one thousand percent for all of her work on this very important provision to help these courageous men and women to kill to still work for the country that they love, that they've served, and that they sacrificed for. All of us should be saying, let's get them back. Let's utilize the expertise that they have because it is for the people of the United States of America. We all should vote yes for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Meeks. Does any other member seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Titus. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, and the amendment is

I have a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous uh announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? Miss Titus.

I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed by Electronic Device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number three hundred and fourteen to HR nine zero eight seven offered by Miss Titus of Nevada. Add at the end the following, section

There being no further dis-

Oh.

Oh, sorry, hang on. Without further objection, uh, reading of the amendment is dispensed with, I recognize Miss Titus for five minutes, uh for the purpose of explaining your amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, now I rise in support of my amendment three fourteen to establish the Judy Heumann Foreign and Civil Service Disability Fellowship program. I'm proud to lead this with Mister Oshefsky. Judy Heumann was an internationally recognized disability rights activist, widely regarded as the mother of the disability rights movement. She was a leader in the historic section five O four sit-in of nineteen seventy seven, and instrumental in the development and implementation of other disability rights legislation. At eighteen months old, Judy contracted polio and began to use a wheelchair for mobility. She, as a little girl, she was denied the right to attend school at the age of five because she was considered a fire hazard. Later in life, Judy was denied her teaching license by the same school district. After passing her oral and written exams, she failed her medical exam, though, simply because she could not walk. Her experience drew her to become an advocate for disability rights, and she was instrumental in the development and implementation of legislation, including Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But she was not only an advocate, she was a personal friend. I had the pleasure of working with her on legislation of my own, and she was just an incredible person to work next to, up to her passing in twenty twenty three. Her work solidified her as a giant in the international disabilities rights space. I was in awe of her, as were many people. She was determined and her advocacy was historic, and that's why I'm proposing this amendment. The Judy Heumann Foreign and Civil Service Disability Fellowship program would be a six to twelve month fellowship to place foreign and civil service members in organizations led by persons with disabilities. They would study international disability frameworks and participate in global disability rights uh programs. Annual reports to Congress would summarize the fellowship's work and outcomes. I urge all of my colleagues to support Judy's work and legacy by voting yes on this amendment and nothing can be more in our interest than uh recognizing someone who has contributed so much to so many of the people that we all know and love and work with, who have disabilities. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Titus. I now recognize myself for five minutes in opposition to this amendment. I do oppose this amendment. The department is already in the process of re-evaluating many of its current internships and fellowship programs. This is not the time to add new fellowship programs while existing ones are currently under review. Additionally, this amendment risks reintroducing arbitrary diversity, equity and inclusion priorities into the department at a time when we are already moving away from them. Priority would be gi- priority should be given to fixing and assessing current programs rather than creating new ones. Congress should not add new DEA DEI mandates while the department is streamlining its workforce and fellowship structures. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the remainder of my time. Does any other member seek recognition? Mister Meeks?

Yeah, I strongly support this amendment. First, Judy Heumann was an inspiration for America and Americans. Someone that we should be hailing for her courage, her fight, to make us a more perfect union. To make sure that all people are included. The fact that someone may have a disability

That's disability.

does not mean that they can't contribute and move forward. In fact, what Judy has shown is that they can do better than some individuals who have no disabilities. that they contribute to this country, that they make a difference and make us a greater country as a result of it, and it looks and it gives us around the world of how will we include everybody. We're all better for it. You can't leave people on the sidelines because of a disability. or because of a different color of skin, or because of those things that makes America great because this is what this country's all about. And to create a fellowship so that those who are disabled know that they can be a part of the State Department. They can learn and move forward and give of their minds to make us better. An example for the rest of the world. Too often we see in other countries where people are just put off to the wayside and not allowed to be included. This amendment that Representative Titus is bringing A, exemplifies a woman that we should all be celebrating and brings forward a class of bright individuals who can contribute to the betterment of our country as we strive to become a more perfect nation. The way that we do that is by inclusion, not exclusion, and having an inclusion in the State Department that would allow and give a fellowship to those with disabilities to know that they too are great patriots, is what this is all about and what we should be voting for. So I strongly support Representative Titus's work in amendment. Now yield back the balance of my time.

Any other members seek recognition? Representative Stanton, I think you were raising your hand.

I was. Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna thank my colleague, Congresswoman Titus, for offering this very important amendment, disability rights are human rights, fundamental to building stronger communities, stronger economies, stronger democracies. When people with disabilities are excluded from education, employment, public life, civic participation, we all lose out on their talents, their perspectives, and their contributions. But when we create accessible and inclusive institution, everyone benefits. That's true here in the United States, and it is true around the world. That's why I strongly support the establishment of the Judy Human Foreign and Civil Service Disability Fellowship, named after one of the leading disability rights advocates in our nation's history, this fellowship recognizes a simple truth. If we want disability inclusion to be a priority in our foreign policy and our government institutions we need leaders with the knowledge, expertise to advance that mission. This program will strengthen the Department of State's expertise in disability rights policy advocacy and implementation by providing foreign service and s- and civil service officers with the opportunity to work directly with organizations led by and serving people with disabilities. It will also help ensure that our diplomatic workforce is better equipped to advance disability rights and inclusion within the department. And what makes this fellowship especially valuable is its practical approach. Fellows will spend up to a year working with disability-led organizations, studying international disability rights frameworks, and participate in global forums focused on advancing inclusion. This is smart, forward-looking investment in leadership, diplomacy, and human rights. By preparing the next generation of public servants to champion disability inclusion at home and abroad, the fellowship will help create more and more accessible, equitable, and inclusive world. So I encourage all my colleagues to support this important amendment. Thank you so much. I yield back.

Any further discussion? There being no further discussion, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Titus. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, signify by saying no. No. Opinion of the chair, the amendment is not agreed to.

Roll call vote.

A roll call vote has been requested, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. That vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? Dina, you got one? Uh, the clerk shall distribute the amendment, clerk shall report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, three hundred and sixteen to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Miss Titus of Nevada.

Without objection for the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, recognize uh Representative Titus.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of amendment three sixteen to require that Deputy Chief of Submission, DCMs, be a career member of the foreign service, unless the secretary certifies to the relevant congressional committee on a case-by-case basis that certain circumstances merit otherwise. Now it's long been a custom that the president can appoint an ambassador who he likes, or has contributed to him, or he knows as a relative or personal friend, or has a lot of money, or for whatever reason. Uh, it can be a political appointee, or it can be a career member of the foreign service. Usually there's a sixty forty split. Sixty percent of ambassadors are career members of the foreign service, while forty percent are political appointments. While I think we should have far more career members of the foreign service serving as ambassadors, since they are skilled and trained and have expertise in diplomacy, unlike some of those who are serving today, uh I understand that it is the position that the president has full authority to appoint. If he wants to get rid of some old girlfriend or something, he can do that. Now for every excellent political ambassador, however, there are a few horror stories. Uh You may have heard some of them yourself, but that's where the deputy chief of mission comes in. The DCM often runs the embassy. That's the person who helps manage the sections alongside the respective section chief it he or she is tasked with day-to-day post operations, helps with moderate to moderate uh country team meetings, this kind of day-to-day activity that is not what the ambassador is involved in. But to be an effective DCM, you have to know the ins and outs of an embassy, how it functions, how the sections interact, what it's supposed to do, who it's supposed to know, et cetera. And to do that, I believe you should be a career foreign service officer. So my amendment is simple. It requires that only members of the foreign service can serve as a DCM at post. Now there's a carve-out for the secretary to allow for exceptions, so long as you certify us to Congress on a case-by-case basis, that special circumstances merit otherwise. But this is a common sense amendment, I think, that ensures that our embassies, whoever the ambassador is, are effectively advancing those important U S national interests, and that our posts abroad are functioning efficiently. So I would urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? Reag- Member Meeks.

Yeah, I support this uh amendment. Um, look. I think it's common sense. It's crucial that we ensure that the Deputy Chief of Mission position is filled by a career member of the Foreign Service. This actually is very important for an ambassador who's never gone to school, uh, as far as diplomacy is concerned, who's never been, cuz sometimes when you're appointed, Never been in an embassy before. Never have negotiated a diplomatic agreement before. Uh, and we know that at times it's a political uh donor uh that uh or a friend uh that uh, a president may uh appoint. But to have someone with the expertise and strength it's it's beneficial to the ambassador. The ambassador then has someone that they know his career. uh that has worked with various other folks in the embassy and around and has someone that they can go to and ask for advice and counsel you know no one knows when you come into any organization of that nature um you have to have someone that you can depend upon that has experience i mean this is what is really important so what the gentle ladies um uh amendment does it does it take away the power of the president of appointing an ambassador uh to the region uh you know as she said it's sixty forty split but it tries to make sure that we have someone that understands the workings of an embassy and can work collectively with the ambassador to make sure that we have uh some continuity and i also think that that would also keep uh in these various embassies which is really important the morale of uh those that work uh in the embassy's uh and and for the state department and those those foreign officers in that regard so i strongly support uh the gentlelady's uh amendment uh and uh so that we have a deputy for admission uh where the position requires deep experience crisis management and an apolitical approach to diplomacy which i think is important uh for all of us uh in that regard uh, especially the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Titus. I recommend a no vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the no's haven't. The amendment is not agreed to.

No calls.

Roll call vote has been requested. Per our previous announcement, that vote will be postponed. Any further amendments?

Yes, I have.

Clerk shall distribute and the clerk shall report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment two, the amendment in the nature of a substitute number three hundred and nineteen to H R nine zero eight seven, offered by Miss Titus.

Without objection for the reading, the amendment is dispensed with, and Representative Titus, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm speaking in support of this amendment three nineteen, which would prohibit the depiction of living individuals on passport documents. In April, the State Department announced it was finalizing plans to include the image of President Trump on US passports. This is a stark and unprecedented departure from long-standing practice. American passports have historically reflected enduring national symbols, landmarks, historical monuments, foundational ideals, rather than elevating any single contemporary political figure. Introducing the likeness of a recent or living political figure raises serious concerns about the politicization of a nonpartisan federal document, and risk aligning the United States with practices more commonly associated with authoritarian systems where state instruments are used to promote, or glorify, individual leaders. Such a move would not only break with institutional norms, but could also undermine public trust in the neutrality and integrity of federal identification. It invites the perception that official government documents are being used for personal or political gratification rather than serving their intended civic function. This concern is particularly acute given the passport's role as a globally recognized representation of the United States and its democratic values. I sent a letter to the State Department in April outlining these concerns, and requesting information on the scope and rationale of the plan, any consultations with Congress or historians before approval of the design, and what impact this would have on the passport application process. In response, the State Department sent back a curt letter that effectively said, the Secretary can do whatever he wants with passports, so just deal with it. Well, that's not good enough of an answer. There needs to be greater congressional oversight into the integrity of a document, excuse me, as important as a US passport. So this amendment would rein in the authority that they're trying to usurp, so that we cannot have a North Korea style self-gratification in this country. This amendment would prohibit passport books, passport cards, or any travel document from bearing the image, likeness, photograph, name, signature, or written identification of any living individual, except of course that of the old passport holder's identifying characteristics. It would also suspend the travel privileges of any political appointee at the State Department, who authorizes or fails to remedy a violation of the above. We already see Donald Trump's face all over DC from the

Any further discussion? Recognize myself for a moment.

Thank you.

Uh, I oppose this amendment. Uh, I do understand the nature of your amendment. I would not have wanted a Joe Biden passport. uh in any way shape or form but i do look forward to having a passport with president trump on it that's the different in our the difference in our politics i would have loved a reagan passport if that would have uh been something that existed but nobody is forced by any means to get it and i believe uh to the best of my recollection it's something that's only offered out of the d. c. uh passport office uh but in that i oppose the amendment and i thank you for the debate any other members seek recognition representative uh meeks

I strongly support this amendment because American passports are symbols of our nation. Not billboards for one politician's ego. Passports should represent the United States of America. And the constitution we all serve. Not the image of whoever happens to hold power at a given moment. This is the United States of America. We don't have kings. We don't have dictators. And our passport should celebrate America and our ideas, not any individual. You know, when I think about it, and when I think we see, you know, in other nations, where the leader, current leader of a country has their name, whether it's on money, or all over the place, or builders, et cetera. When I think who they are, I think of Gaddafi. I think of Idi Amin. I think of Vladimir Putin. I think of Kim Jong Un. I think of Saddam Hussein. I think of Mr. Xi. Well, at least you can go to those countries. And you'll see their names and their likeness and their face over everything. That's not the United States of America. Those are dictators. Those are ones who want absolute power over everything. What makes this nation great is that that's not who we are. We have a democracy and we take an oath of office and we respect our constitution. The chairman in this committee, any time it opens, he asks us to take a pledge of allegiance. not to a president, not to anybody that's in office, that pledge of allegiance is to the United States of America. Those passports should represent the United States of America. Let's not be like what we see with sheep. Hussein, Kim Jong-un, Putin, Gaddafi, Idi Amin. That's not us. Support this amendment. I yield back.

Thank you, ranking member Meeks. I'd just say too that, you know, we put the treasury secretary's signature on our currency. They oversee design uh of currency. We do it for the purpose of uh ensuring its authenticity. Uh, I understand the argument and debate here fully, but we do do it. Uh, we do uh put the signature of the treasury secretary on our bills. as well. Uh, in that, any further discussion? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Jacobs didn't see you down there. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Saddam Hussein put his face on currency. Kim Jong-un's portrait hangs in every classroom. And now, Donald Trump wants his photo on passports. And from what I can tell, my Republican colleagues are totally fine with that. This is literally the stuff of authoritarians. Saddam Hussein plastered his portrait on nearly every single public service in Iraq and every piece of currency. Joseph Stalin did the same, saturating public squares and classrooms and government buildings with statues and portraits of himself. Kim Jong-un forced the citizens to wear badges with his face on them. This type of move is right out of the dictator's playbook. Be everywhere to establish omnipresence. So it feels like you're always being watched to create fake legitimacy and cultivate a cult of personality. But even with all of that, none of these authoritarian states have put their sitting head of state's face on their passports. That, of course, doesn't stop President Trump. The President of the United States wants to set a new precedent, both here at home and among the world's dictators, by putting his face on a set of passports carried by American citizens traveling abroad. Voting against this amendment is a vote to let Donald Trump turn passports into his personal propaganda material. It's a vote to let our leader's face belong on our documents, just like Saddam, Stalin, and Kim, and every strongman who needed the state to validate their ego and assert dominance. They couldn't actually earn respect, so they had to manufacture it. They couldn't inspire loyalty, so they demanded it. And they couldn't truly lead without fear, so they had to put their face

Representative yields back. I will look forward to seeing who goes out there and chooses to get uh a passport,

Mm.

because you would have to choose to get one. I would choose to get one. So in the end it might actually be an economic boon to the State Department for those of us that are buying uh those passports. So we'll see in the end. Uh, any other further, any further discussion? Seeing none. Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Titus. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. No. Pinning the chair, the no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to.

Roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested. Per our previous announcement, it will be rolled until later. Any further amendments? Representative Titus. Clerk shall distribute and report your amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number three hundred and twenty-one, to H R nine zero eight seven.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with, and recognize Representative Titus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I rise in support of this amendment three twenty-one to require the secretary to take such steps as may be necessary for the goal of ensuring that eighty percent of non-immigrant visa applications be interviewed within three weeks of receipt and application. I would note that an almost identical provision such as this one passed out of our committee during last year's State Department authorization process. Now the U. S. is about to play host to some of the most important global sporting events over the next several years. It's gonna begin with the FIFA World Cup. Los Angeles is gonna host the twenty twenty eight Olympics. The twenty thirty one Rugby World Cup will be in the US. And the twenty thirty four Winter Olympics will be held in Salt Lake City. In addition, you've got the Formula One Grand Prix in Miami, Austin, and in my district in Las Vegas. These events will supercharge tourism in the US, which brings about two point five trillion dollars to our economy. That's about nine percent of our GDP. But right now, tourism is in a slump, we're seeing a decline of people wanting to come to the US due to tariffs, wars, and the President's rhetoric towards other countries. Uh, it's we're a less attractive place, less convenient, but foreigners can go somewhere else on holiday, and local economies like the one I represent are seeing a real loss in revenue because of this. For example, let me share some other districts besides my own in Las Vegas. Rep Salazar's district in her district tourism brings in thirty-two billion dollars annually in the Hudson Valley region where representative Lawler uh represents folks tourism brings in two billion annually. Representative Luna's district brings in about ten billion dollars in tourism uh annually and finally you, Mister Chairman, have about four billion dollars in tourism revenue. that comes along the Florida Treasure Coast. So many of us have tourism to thank for a lot of the vibrancy of our respective economies. So we need to make it easier, not more difficult, for people to get to our districts where they can spend money at small businesses. They stay longer, they spend more, adds to the economy, creates jobs, supports uh local services. At some high val- uh high volume consular we are seeing massive wait times for tourism visas. It's eleven months in Bogota, eight months in New Delhi, seven months in Mexico City, eleven months in Ottawa, and over a year in Vancouver. Now this is really unacceptable and is hurting our constituents, uh, and their res- their respective tourism economies. If we do this amendment, It will help with these enormous wait times, help tourists visit our country, and help our local economies. From our America two fifty festivities to these sporting events I mentioned,

Right.

people wanna come and we need to help make that more uh convenient. So we need to give support to the Consular Affairs Bureau at State so we can chip away at these backlogs and reduce that wait time to three weeks for eighty percent. So I urge you to

Any other members seek recognition? Ranking member Meeks?

Yeah, I I support this amendment, as it encourages the State Department to meet an ambitious but necessary objective of processing non-immigrant visas and we need to do it as quickly as possible. I think this is practical, it's important, uh, as the gentle lady said, uh, we've got FIFA coming now and others are to expedite these, uh, uh, non-immigrant visas. quickly as possible is something that I think that we should be doing and uh and I urge all members to vote yes, yield back to Baxter Bata.

Uh Representative Stan.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and I do wanna thank my colleague, Congresswoman Titus, for offering this important amendment. Arizona is home to the largest public university in the country, Arizona State University. Every year thousands of international students choose to come to Arizona because as a place of opportunity, innovation, and academic excellence. But today too many students and their families are running into the same obstacle, visa interview wait times that are simply too long. I've heard from constituents whose family members have visa appointments more than a year in the future. Imagine having a parent, spouse, sibling in the United States facing a serious illness and being told that the earliest interview available is twelve, fourteen, even eighteen months away. with little hope of securing an earlier appointment. By the time the appointment arrives, the opportunity to care for a loved one may have already passed. These delays are not just inconvenient, they have real human consequences. The impact is being felt on our college campuses. President Trump's war of choice in Iran created immediate uncertainty for students hoping to begin or continue their education in the United States. At ASU, visa bottlenecks and travel disruptions caused by the war have made it harder for students to arrive on time. forcing universities and students alike to navigate tremendous uncertainty. Reports have shown that visa appointment slowdowns are already contributing to declines in international enrollment and preventing students from reaching campus when classes begin this fall. That's why I support this important amendment. It establishes a clear goal for the Department of State to ensure eighty percent of non-immigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of applying. while recognizing that security requirements and constant responsibilities must always be maintained. This probe proposal does not weaken vetting standards. It does not cut corners. It simply acknowledges that a system that leaves students, researchers, business travelers, family members waiting for more than a year for interview is not serving our national interests. The United States must always remain a destination of choice for the world's best students families facing medical emergencies should have a fair opportunity to be together and And our visa system should reflect the values of a nation with, that welcomes talent, supports families, and competes globally. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Any other members? Recognize myself for a moment. We find common ground. I support this amendment. Miss Titus, uh, this provision sets an eighty percent benchmark. Without tying the State Department's hands, I think this is something we need to be looking at. Basically anywhere in government, uh, where the government owes a certain level of timeliness, uh to decisions. Whether it's this or a NEPA permit or anything else, uh there has to be some sort of threshold for what is timeliness for a decision made by the US government. I support any other members seeking permission. Seeing none, question now occurs. Uh, question now occurs. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Ayes have it. Amendment is agreed to. Do you request a roll call vote? No.

We we do.

Yes.

I'm not going at all.

Yeah.

Apparently.

Okay.

Sure.

We want we want a roll call.

A roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement that vote will be postponed.

Thanks for being so agreeable.

Always.

Are there any further amendments?

Any further amendments?

Mister Stanton.

Mister Stanton, you have an amendment at the desk, clerk shall uh report it and clerk shall distribute it.

Thank you. The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number ninety four to H R nine zero eight seven, offered by Mister Stanton of Arizona.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with, Representative Stanton, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, the Foreign Service exam is designed to evaluate candidates' knowledge, skills, and potential to serve as America's diplomats. It assesses the qualifications necessary to succeed in foreign service, from composure to cultural adaptability, teamwork, written communication. Earlier this year, the Trump administration made significant changes to the foreign service exam, citing a desire to eliminate " diversity, equity and inclusion" and promoting " America first foreign policy." As part of these changes, a series of questions that historically evaluated how candidates work and communicate with people from different cultures, political systems, and economic backgrounds were removed. The justification was that these questions unfairly disadvantaged, quote, ordinary Americans, unquote, based upon their upbringing. But many career diplomats and the American Foreign Service Association have expressed concern that political ideology is now influencing a process that should remain focused on identifying the most qualified candidates to represent our nation abroad. So my amendment is simple. It requires that any question during the foreign service examination process be tied directly to the objectives established in section one O one of the Foreign Service Act. Section one O one states that quote, " the members of the foreign service should be representative of the American people, aware of the principles and history of the United States, and informed of current concerns and trends in American life." To meet that standard, we need an exam that evaluates cultural adaptability and sound judgment and the ability to work effectively with people from all walks of life. Our diplomats engage every day with individuals from different ethnic, cultural, political, and economic backgrounds. Those skills are not peripheral to the job, they are central to it. This amendment helps ensure that the foreign service examination remains focused on the bipartisan goals Congress has long established, selecting the best qualified Americans to represent the United States overseas. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.

Ranking member Meeks, you wanna be recognized?

Right. i support this amendment as it will ensure that written and all examination remains non-partisan you know uh it's unfortunate that we have to have this kind of amendment i don't think that we've had this before i think that when you look at the members of the state department i know when i have traveled and have gone and talked to folks at the state department and all those in embassies around the world i don't know what they uh you know uh whether they were democrats or republicans or anything else in that regards. Uh. But unfortunately, I think that where we are now, as a result of, you know, like individuals who want their faces on passports or other things, uh, they also just wanna make sure that individuals will come, basically, just in our government, that will bow, not, you know, for the country, but that will be there for them. Um, so we've gotta have amendments of this nature so that we can make sure that we're maintaining a State Department that is inclusive of everyone in America uh and that does not ask you know questions uh during their written oral examination uh that uh um deals with their service in things that are outside of the State purposes of achieving the goals outlined in section one O one. Uh, that's exactly what this amendment does. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think we all should. I yield back.

Recognize myself, I oppose this amendment. Provision would align the purpose of the written and oral for for foreign service examinations with section one O one of the foreign service act. However, this amendment is overly prescriptive and would limit the State Department's ability to shape the foreign service officer assessment, and foreign service officer test. Uh, do any other members seek recognition?

Stan has one more.

There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment. Offered by Representative Stanton. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Request call, roll call vote please.

Roll call vote has been requested. That will be rolled till later. Any further amendments? Representative Stanton, you have one? Another one? Clerk will

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute the amendment and report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred.

Um.

Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I would uh would recognize uh Ranking Member Meeks.

Thank.

Stanton.

You wanna speak first?

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Representative Stanton. You can speak first. I'm okay with it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My amendment makes a common sense addition to the underlying bill. The Foreign Service Board of Examiners is tasked with periodically reviewing the foreign service exam. Their job is to determine whether the exam in its current form has any in adverse impact on hiring, promotions, or other employment opportunities, and if so, suggestions on how to minimize such adverse impact. The board is only required to report on its finding and suggestions to the secretary annually. Earlier this year, the Trump administration made significant changes to the foreign service exam with a specific focus on eliminating, quote, diversity, equity and inclusion, unquote, and promoting, quote, America first foreign policy, unquote. I mentioned earlier that AFSA, the union that represents foreign service officers, is extremely concerned that these changes inject political ideology into the foreign service officer selection process. This amendment requires that the Board of Examiners, in coordination with the Bureau of Human Resources, notify Congress of any structural update or change to the foreign service exam including changing the substance of the exam or adding or removing major parts of the examination process. This is ensure Congress has oversight, oversight over any changes and can better track its impact on the hiring process. The foreign service exam is not meant to be political, but rather representative of the qualities we wanna see reflected in our nation's diplomats. Thank you, Chairman Mast, for working with me on this amendment and for your support, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

Thank you, member Meeks. Yeah, I I support this amendment as it will provide Congress important information about any changes made to the foreign service exam. You know, uh, we have uh, recently seen the department fail to notify or consult Congress, uh, us, about its rushed and, what I believe, politically motivated changes to the foreign service exam. And I know that this, you know, again, um, applies to all presidents. Um, and any future exam, no matter who the president is, And, you know, we in Congress, and the reason why the founding fathers, you know, have us as Congress, we are an oversight branch uh of government. We oversight oversee the executive branch and other things to make sure that the people's will is being done. And that's what this bill does. Uh, and so I support it. I think it's important. A year back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment, which strengthens congressional oversight and ensures transparency, as the State Department continually reviews and updates the foreign service Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Stanton. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, signify by saying no. Penny, the Chair. The ayes have it.

I still request a roll call vote, please.

Roll call vote has been requested. That will be rolled to a later time.

Thank you so much.

Any further amendments? Mister Baird, do you have an amendment?

Yes, Mister Chairman, yes.

Clerk shall distribute and report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number forty to H R nine zero eight seven, opposite

Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Recognized, Mister Baird.

Mister Chairman, countries around the world have been searching for reliable, cheap and secure avenues to become energy independent and reduced dependency on volatile oil supply and the developing regions such as sub-Saharan, Africa, Southeast Asia and South America have begun considering nuclear energy as a plausible path forward. Supply chain constraints, such as the Strait of Hormuz being targeted by the terror-sponsoring regime of Iran have showcased that building new energy infrastructure should be fast-tracked, as partner nations consider energy technology is pertinent to our diplomacy and our diplomats are armed with program to consult and teach our allies about safety implementing civil nuclear energy. Including the text of Forge and the Forge Act in HR seventy or HR ninety eighty seven as an amendment will solidify into law the foundational infrastructure for responsible use of small modular reactor technology and that program, which does exactly that. It is a State Department program to conduct technical consultations feasibility studies and advocacy sessions for US diplomats to represent US designed and manufactured civil nuclear energy technology. China is less than a year from commercializing its first small modular reactor, and only a couple of years away from exporting the model of SMRs. Other US adversaries have designed memorandum and understanding with coup states, co-op states, such as Malay and Burkina Fasino to build nuclear energy plants in the region that currently is unstable due to rampant terrorist activities. In countries that currently cannot properly govern or protect their territorial integrity, from jihadists, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and look forward to enhancing the State Department's ability to tackle civil nuclear energy in a tool of diplomacy. I yield back.

Ranking member Beeks.

I uh I support this amendment. This amendment would authorize the foundational infrastructure for responsible use of small modular technology program at the Department of State. This initiative at the State Department, which began under Secretary Blinken and President Biden, is a smart and responsible way to promote U. S. civil nuclear leadership around the world. In particular, it promotes new small modular reactor technology that could provide enormous and cost-efficient amount of clean energy if deployed at scale. So, I agree with this amendment, I support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment as well. Straightforward step to keep America and the global civil nuclear race. Uh, so thank you, Mister Baird, for your work on this. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Baird. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Pending to the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I want a roll call vote, please.

Roll call vote has been requested. That will be re- rolled until a later time. Any further amendments? You have another one, Mister Baird?

Yes, I have amendment to this.

Clerk shall distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one number forty-one to HR nine zero eight seven.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with, recognize you, Mister Baird.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment which would update existing American funding prohibitions to include UN organizations that enhance the status of the Palestinian Liberation Organization above observer status. The PLO has continued over several decades in acts of terrorism and human rights atrocities. While US laws prohibit funding the UN organizations that give the PLO full membership, the United States must stand with the sole democracy in the Middle East, Israel, against the PLO's attempts to weaponize international organizations. October the seventh, twenty twenty-three, Hamas conducted the most heinous Terror attacks since nineteen eleven. Mass rapes. Mass killings. Twelve hundred Israelis killed by the hateful terrorist organization. February twenty twenty six, the secretary general of the PLO stated that Hamas isn't a terrorist organization, even going as far as rejecting calls for Hamas to disarm. At a certain point, you ought to call it what it is. This committee needs to acknowledge that. Regardless of the signs, cease-fires and peace frameworks,

What's the scroll?

there has been little progress in their de-ratification.

I didn't even look.

I yield back.

Ranking member Meeks, would you like to be recognized?

I oppose this amendment. This amendment um will have you know, and we've opposed this in the past. Uh if passed, this amendment would lead to a cut-off of the united states funding to a number of united nations bodies that's critical for advancing us interests including risking a loss of the united states vote uh in the general assembly um you know as the state department has indicated that if this bill were to become law it could immediately trigger a potential cut off funding to the united nations based not only on the un general assembly resolution on Palestinian status adopted in May, or possibly even the observer state resolution from two thousand and twelve. Therefore, I strongly oppose this amendment, I yield back the balance of my time.

Any other members seek recognition? Go ahead, Representative Castro.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I wanna be clear about why. The Palestinian people are a people. They have a history. They have a homeland. And they have the same right that all people have, the right to determine their own future. Just as the people of Israel have the right to a state of their own, where they can determine their own future, so do the Palestinians. And that's not a radical proposition, it's the position of most of the world. One hundred and fifty-seven countries, eighty-one percent of the nations on Earth, representing ninety percent of the world's population, have in fact recognized the state of Palestine. So, this is not a fringe or radical view. United States, unfortunately, is increasingly an outlier. So, I oppose this amendment on those grounds that it fundamentally denies the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination and statehood. But it actually does more and would be absolutely devastating to the United Nations and our global leadership. This amendment doesn't just target the Palestinians. By changing the standard from "the same standing as a member state" to " any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status", it sweeps in far more than what I what I expect the authors intended. The United Nations General Assembly has granted the state of Palestine certain participatory rights beyond those of an ordinary observer. So, under this amendment, the United States could be forced to cut off our contributions to the general And when a country falls into arrears at the United Nations, Mr. Chairman, it risks its vote under Article nineteen of the UN Charter. In the name of punishing the Palestinians, we could hand away America's voice and influence and our vote at the United Nations itself. And it doesn't stop there, actually. The European Union and the Holy See are full members of a range of international organizations and neither one meets the standard that this amendment writes into law. The European Union is not a state. It's a union of states. The Holy See holds its membership as the seat of the Catholic Church. It is not technically the state of Vatican City. The Holy See does not meet the standard of having, quote, " internationally recognized attributes of statehood", such as a defined territory or permanent population. So, if you follow the logic, under this amendment, the United States could be forced to defund and lose our seat and our vote in UN bodies, where the EU and the Holy See have been admitted as full members, including, for example, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Trade Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, the IAEA, the body that inspects Iran's nuclear program. We could lose our vote and ability to influence its actions. The OPCW, which keeps chemical weapons out of the hands of our enemies, as well. We would walk ourselves out of the room in each of those places. Mister Chairman, this amendment would eviscerate American leadership. at the United Nations and across the international system. And it would do so in the name of denying the Palestinian people the right to determine their own future. It does not advance peace. It does not help a single Israeli or a single Palestinian. It only diminishes the influence and the power of the United States. With that, I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself. Uh, I do see it as ridiculous that the US has to step in and stop the UN from rewarding the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO, with increased status. Um, but that's, uh, what's going on. This amendment prohibits US from contributing to the UN if the PLO receives any enhancement of status beyond observer status. Uh, so in that, I support the Baird amendment, and do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Baird. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say no.

No.

Penny, the chair, the ayes have it.

Roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested, we'll roll it till later. Mister Baier, do you have another amendment?

Hi, Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to ask.

The clerk will distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number forty four to H R nine zero eight seven, offered by Mister Baier.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in favor of this amendment, which exempts passport fees for all Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients. The brave men and women who have earned the Purple Heart or the Medal of Honor, have demonstrated extraordinary sacrifice in service to our nation. These awards are often earned under the most difficult circumstances imaginable and represent two of the highest forms of military valor. This amendment is a simple yet meaningful way to recognize these recipients. While no benefit can fully repay their sacrifices made by these heroes and their families, this amendment offers an expression of our appreciation, exempting the award recipients from having to pay over a hundred dollars to be able to travel as United States citizens.

Okay.

Many Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients continue their service long after their military career is in, being exemplary citizens and sharing their stories with future generations. A passport fee should not be and preclude our best community members from traveling internationally. Yeah. I don't know how many members. Supporting our veterans should never be a partisan issue, and I thank Representative Mike Levin of We can say wherever we want to say. California for introducing the stand-alone bill version of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Ranking member Meeks, you wanna be recognized?

Yeah, thank you, I support this amendment as it provides an important exemption

Very good. Recognize myself. I also support this amendment to exempt Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients from paying passport fees. The passport is the document that represents American citizenship abroad, and nobody has done more to defend American ideals than those who have earned the Purple Heart the Medal of Honor been recognized for their valor uh and their uh wounded in the line of combat uh in defense of this country. They should not have to pay an administrative fee to represent America abroad after sacrificing so much for the United States of America. Congress has already created passport fee exemptions for other deserving categories. This amendment adds Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients to that existing list. Uh and so, very proud of you offering this, Mr. Baird. And do any other members seek recognition? Being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Baird. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no. Pinned into the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, can we have a roll call vote, please?

A roll call vote has been requested, and we will roll that to a later time.

Thank you, sir.

Is there a member that has a amendment at the desk? Mister Zinke, uh you have an amendment?

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Then the clerk will distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR nine zero eight seven, offered by Mister Zinke of Montana.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with. And Mister Zinke, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This is involves Bahrain, the sale of Stinger missiles. current policy as a one for one that means replacement for everyone. I think we can all agree conditions in the ground, missile defense, drones, in the air has changed the requirement. What this amendment simply does is that it gives them access to a weapon system they need for defense. And remember we have the fifth fleet sitting in Bahrain, so it's important in the interest of this nation. So I would uh urge adoption and and passage without a yield.

Thank you, Representative Zinke. Any other members? Representative Ocheski, go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, this amendment modifies certain conditions previously placed on the transfer of surface-to-air missiles to Bahrain. Uh, over three decades ago, as Bahrain and other Gulf countries continue to face significant threats from Iran, it's important that the US provide the adequate defensive capabilities to help these partners defend themselves and US personnel and facilities in the region. That's why I support this amendment, which updates this outdated provision and maintains appropriate and use monitoring standards. And with that, I yield back.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself. I support this amendment, which removes an outdated nineteen ninety error restriction that gives Bahrain the flexibility to acquire additional Stinger missiles to address today's threat environment. Bahrain is a ma- major security cooperation partner, and host of US fifth fleet. They have shown that they are willing, an equal partner to the United States, not a dependent. We appreciate them. uh in their work on a great number of fronts uh and uh bahrain is also on the front lines of the iranian threat they are facing increasing threats from iranian drones cruise missiles other airborne threats so strengthening bahrain's short range air defense capabilities it enhances regional deterrence it improves burden sharing among us partners and it helps protect both bahraini and us personnel and facilities from Iranian proxies uh attacks and Iran's attacks very directly. Uh, so thank you for your work on this, Mister Zinke. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question. Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Zinke. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Pending to the chair, the ayes have it.

Mister Chairman, I request a roll call jo- vote.

A roll call vote has been requested and we will roll that till later. Is there, are there any further amendments? Representative Ocheski, we will uh distribute and report your amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Advice. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number sixty-seven to HR ninety-eight.

That objection further reading is dispensed with. Recognize you, Mr. Ocheski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, currently the State Department and other civilian agencies do not have the authority to cover pre-k expenses. Even though they already provide allowance for kindergarten elementary and secondary education. This gap creates inequities for US personnel serving overseas and places additional financial strains on their families. Extending this authority would offer comparable support while promoting early childhood education that improves long-term academic outcomes and reduces future remediation costs. It would also bring these agencies in line with the department of defense. which began offering overseas pre-K education benefits for eligible dependents in the twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five school year. Specifically, this amendment would authorize the department, along with other agencies that have foreign service personnel, to provide an allowance for one year of pre-kindergarten education for family members abroad. I'd emphasize that the State Department did not oppose this provision. They simply acknowledged the cost associated with it. Let's help make life more affordable for our brave diplomats, representing the best of America abroad. I urge my colleagues.

Recognize myself. I oppose this amendment, but am willing to work with you more uh as we consult with the State Department to understand how families uh would be affected and what we can do to better assist them. We will work with you more uh on this, but I do oppose this amendment at this time. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, uh the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Ocheski. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

Request request roll call vote, Mister Chair.

Roll call vote has been requested, uh, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. That will be postponed. Mister Rocheski, do you have another uh amendment?

I do, I do, Mister Chairman.

Clerk shall distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with.

Amendment to the amen

Mister Rocheski, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for working with us on the prior amendment, as well as for your partnership uh with your staff negotiating uh on this amendment in a bipartisan way. This provision reflects bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate, and I appreciate your team working with us on it. This amendment is a common sense provision that reflects modern workforce realities. It ensures that professionals who are experienced are not forced out of service before they are eligible to receive their full social security benefits. Under the Foreign Service Act, members of the foreign service are forced to retire when they turn age sixty five, consistent with Social Security's full retirement age in a place at the time when the law was enacted. However, when Social Security's full retirement age increased to sixty seven in nineteen eighty three this mandatory retirement age for the foreign service remained the same.

Mm-hmm.

As a result, foreign service officers who are required to re- to retire at sixty five can face a gap before they are eligible for full Social Security benefits this amendment, simply fixes that mismatch mismatch. It would realign the Foreign Service mandatory retirement age with the FRA, raising it from sixty-five to sixty-seven, and ensuring that it keeps pace with any future changes. America's diplomats dedicate their careers to advancing our national security, protecting American interests abroad, and representing the very best of our country. We should be doing all that we can to ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled, without delay. This is a modest practical adjustment that supports our workforce, without disrupting the system. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Recognize myself, Mr. Ocheski. I support this amendment, which realigns the foreign service retirement age to be consistent with other federal agencies uh importantly this incorporates state department technical assistance to ensure this change does not inadvertently impact uh promotion prospects for foreign service officers or anything else urge my colleagues to support. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Ocheski. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested and that will be rolled until a later time. I believe uh, Chairman Emeritus McCaul, do you have an amendment at the desk?

Mr. Chairman, I I do have an amendment.

The clerk will distribute and report that.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number forty seven, to H R nine zero eight seven, offered by Mr. McCaul.

Not objection. for the reading of that amendment is dispensed with. You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, in twenty twenty four, I led a bipartisan delegation to Dharamsala, India. Had the honor of sitting down with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. He's one of the most remarkable persons I've ever met, full of warmth, wisdom, and full of humor. At one point he looked at me and smiled and told me, he plans to live to a hundred and ten. Well, I hope he's right. But we cannot build American foreign policy on the hope that one man lives forever. The Dalai Lama has said he will not be reborn in China, but rather freedom. The question who succeeds the Dalai Lama is coming, and Beijing knows this. Beijing has already built the machinery to hijack this process. Back in two thousand seven, the Communist Party handed itself the supposed authority to prove who may and may not be reincarnated. Let that sink in. An officially atheist government claiming the power to license reincarnation for the Tibetan people. And just this March, the CCP instituted a new law, the Orwellian named Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which stamps out minority languages, minority faiths, and minority cultures, all in the name of ethnic unity. In twenty twenty, this committee did historic bipartisan work by passing the Tibetan Policy and Support Act, establishing a powerful framework to defend the religious freedom of the Tibetan people. But as the CCP's tactics evolved, our statutory language must keep pace with that. The Dalai Lama has already laid out how his successor is to be recognized after he is gone placing that authority within his own office. and the senior leaders of his faith. My amendment affirms that this is the process the US policy recognizes and the CCP has no role in that. This is not only a matter of faith, Mister Chairman, it's a matter of national security. If we sit on our hands, Beijing will name a counterfeit Dalai Lama, a spiritual figurehead loyal not to the Tibetan people, but rather to the Communist Party. And it will use him as an instrument of influence across the entire Himalayan region and Nepal, Mongolia, and right along the border of our partner, India. We cannot let the CCP weaponize a centuries-old institution of peace to extend its own control. When I visited the Dalai Lama again, he told me, " I will not be reborn in China, I will re- be reborn in freedom." We must honor that wish by ensuring this decision rests with him and his people, not with a government that has spent decades trying to erase them and to erase him. Protecting Tibet has always been a bipartisan cause in this committee, and our law should say so just as clearly. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.

Mr. Ocheski.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment which amends statute to make clear that China's intervention in the succession process for the Dalai Lama is unacceptable. This amendment will make clear that we stand with the Tibetan people in the face of Beijing's repression with Adi Obak.

Recognize myself, I support this amendment, and make clear that the United States will not stand by as the CCP tries to erase Tibetan Buddhism off the map. Thank you for your work on this, Chairman Emeritus McCaul, uh, and do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative McCall. All those in favor signify by saying yes, aye, aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Pinned to the chair, the ayes have it.

Mister Chairman, ask for a roll call vote.

The amendment is agreed to. A roll call vote has been requested, and that will be rolled until a later time. Mister Ocheski, do you have an amendment?

I do, Mister Chairman.

Clerk will distribute and report that.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number seventy eight to HR

Not objection. further reading of that amendment is dispensed with. Uh, and Mr. Ocheski, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would ensure that foreign service officers receive per diem allowances and other lodging for home leave in between tours of service. Currently, Congress mandates through the Foreign Service Act that foreign service officers must take thirty days of so-called home leave in between tours of duty abroad. This thirty days of home leave must take place in the United States and is a way of ensuring FSOs do not lose track of their American roots. I support home leave, and I believe it's an important way to ensure FSOs are connected to our country while they spend so much time abroad. However, FSOs are currently unable to receive per diem lodging and allowances for that home leave This is a financial burden for many FSOs who may not have accessible lodging in the States. A family of four, for example, would be required to pay out of pocket for department-mandated leave for a spouse and children. This amendment simply requires the department to provide per diem allowances and lodging to foreign service officers to ease that burden of an important and necessary return to the United States I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and I yield back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment, which ensures foreign service officers on government directed leave are not left without the benefits needed to make that leave sustainable. Closes a gap that has existed for too long and aligns with previous efforts to allow FSOs to use military housing during the same mandatory thirty day leave period when the department orders an FSO to return to the United States for required leave it is only fair that the government provide the support necessary to carry out that order effectively this amendment was negotiated in good faith and is a common sense measure that benefits our diplomats and I urge my colleagues to support it uh any other members seek discussion seeing none uh the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Uh, ask for a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested and that will be rolled until a later time.

Thank you.

Who has an amendment next?

Okay. Chairman Smith.

Representative Smith. Do you have an amendment?

I have an amendment that's a definitely.

Then the clerk will distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment two, the amendment in the nature of

Without objection, further reading of that will be dispensed with, and you are recognized, Mister Smith.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. chairman the walter patterson justice and extradition act would require the president to submit annual reports to congress identifying fugitives residing around whose extradition is sought by the us reason to do the file so exact describing diplomatic efforts to secure their return well assessing barriers to extradition and tracking the outcomes of such cases who did the fs with the base text the bill responds to the problem that some foreign governments base text have refused to extradite individuals convicted of serious crimes yes in the united states thereby undermining the rule of law and denying justice to victims and their families. This refusal to extradite has involved individuals from my own district in New Jersey, individuals murdered by brutal killers who fought sought refuge abroad, and New Jersey families who suffer from the inability to find closure and justice and accountability as they see the killer of the beloved family member living freely abroad and even taunting the family in particularly it's motivated by the story of Walter Patterson murdered by George Wright, who was convicted of the murder, sentenced, but escaped, and today lives openly in Portugal. In nineteen sixty three, George Wright was convicted in connection with a gas station robbery in Wall Township, New Jersey, during which Walter Patterson, a decorated World War Two veteran and Bronze Star recipient, was beaten and shot to death. Wright was subsequently sentenced to fifteen to thirty years, but in nineteen seventy escaped from Leesburg State Prison, now renamed Bayside State Prison. In seventy two, he and four other men hijacked a Detroit to Miami flight, taking the plane to Algeria, where they disappeared. For forty one years, George Wright's whereabouts were unknown, and he built a life on lies and deception. When George was located, George Wright that is, in Portugal in two thousand eleven, by a retired FBI agent, the Patterson family naturally thought that as a convicted felon, imprisoned, escaping, and also a hijacker of an airliner, he would be speedily returned to the US to finish serving the sentence he received for the murder of Walter Patterson. Portugal, after all, is a close ally, committed to the rule of law, and has a long-standing extradition agreement with the United States. Shockingly, the Portuguese government rejected the US extradition request in November of that year in efforts to reverse that decision and I've met with the embassy, I've met with other diplomats in Portugal, all like I'm talking to that wall, no response whatsoever. The Patterson family, so deeply wounded by the murder of their beloved family members, and then by the murderer's escape, are bewildered and angry at Portugal's refusal to extradite George Wright. I held a number of hearings on this, one of them in two thousand twelve, and Walter Patterson's daughter, Anne, said this, testimony testimony. "The seventy dollars that George Wright and Walter McKee stole wasn't enough." They had to beat my father beyond recognition. George Wright was identified by the imprints of the stock on his gun on my father's skin. If there had not been such a beating, the doctors could have operated on the bullet wound to the abdomen, and it is quite possible that daddy would still be here with us today. The funeral home asked for a photo of her father so that they could take, make him look like the picture. "Does that sound odd to you?" she said. "My father was unrecognizable." And then she went on with tears in her eyes to tell the rest. See that was at a hearing that I held back in two thousand twelve. We did a mark-up in two thousand sixteen on this bill, and it never made its way to the floor. You know, the delay is denial, but we cannot, there's no statute of limitations on a murder, a heinous murder like this one, and this man needs to be extradited to the United States. I commend the FBI agent for his tenacity in tracking him down. We know where he lives. We need to go get them. And this legislation would at least tell the State Department, tell us about this case and every other case, because we have had crickets for many, many years. Uh, nothing. No help whatsoever. Yield back.

Mister Ocheski.

Yeah, thank you, Mister Chairman. I support this amendment as well, which would provide Congress with valuable information about the number of fugitives to whom the US is seeking extradition along with other information. I yield back.

Mister Castro, you're looking to be recognized. We, you're premature. So, recognize myself for a moment. Uh, I would say this justice delay is justice denied. The United States should never stop seeking justice for victims and their families, simply because a criminal has fled overseas. Sometimes that can be the most frustrating, uh, thing to any family. This amendment would require a report to Congress on US efforts to extradite or rendition fugitives including George Wright. who was convicted of murdering a Walter Patterson, a World War Two veteran, Bronze Star recipient, uh and other unresolved cases. Uh so thank you for your work on this, Mister Smith, uh anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Smith. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Chair, I request a record of.

Roll call vote has been requested, we will roll that to a later time. Who has the next amendment?

Uh, Mr. Castro.

Representative Castro, you have an amendment?

Uh, I do, Chairman. Amendment number one thirty seven.

Clerk will distribute and report.

The amendment's been distributed by via electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and thirty seven to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Mr. Castro of Texas. At the appropriate place, insert the following. Section, returning policy execution to diplomatic efforts. section one O four of the Foreign Service Act of nineteen O eight is amended in paragraph two by striking and at the end in paragraph three by striking a period at the end and inserting and and by adding at the end the following.

For the reading is dispensed with representative Castro, your recognizer.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. The Foreign Service exists to carry out the foreign policy of the United States, the policy set by the President and the Secretary of State, and do it through diplomacy. And that's right, and I have no quarrel with it. Uh, HR ninety eighty six, It's true. the text we considered earlier, includes language that would integrate this mission into the statutory definition of the foreign services mission and function. My amendment makes one change. The provision as written says the service executes policy, quote, consistent with policies established by the president and the secretary. My amendment adds just a few words before that, quote, consistent with the constitution of the United States, United States law, and policies established by the President and the Secretary. And so that's the entirety, that's the whole amendment. Uh, the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And I'd suggest this should be, uh, hopefully the easiest vote that we take today. Uh, the President's own oath, the one every President takes, is to quote " preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". And the President's duty under Article Two is to quote, " take care that the laws be faithfully executed" unquote. The President's policies draw this authority from the Constitution and the law. So what I'm proposing is that when we describe how the Foreign Service carries out the President's policies, we name the foundation those policies stand upon. We put the Constitution and the laws of the United States, directly in the Foreign Service's mission. It's a reminder for all of us that we're public servants, and and that includes the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and that we're all bound by the Constitution and United States laws. How you doing, back?

Ranking member Meeks, who would you like to recognize? Very good. Recognize myself. I support this amendment, which amends the Foreign Service Act to add adherence to the United States Constitution as one of the core functions of the Foreign Service Act, common sense initiative that strengthens the role of our diplomats by reinforcing fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, restoring and reinforcing fidelity to the Constitution among our foreign service officers, is a common sense step. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Uh, anybody else seek recognition? Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Castro. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed, say no. Penny, the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Roll call vote has been requested. That will be rolled till later time.

Um, any other amendments?

Close the next amendment.

Mr. Castro.

Representative Castro, you have another one? Clerk will distribute it and report it.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. Yeah, one thirty-one, amendment one thirty-one.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of sex.

Other reading is dispensed with. Representative Castro, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. Uh, this provision does something simple and overdue. It makes sure that our chiefs of mission, our ambassadors, actually understand the US Department of Defense's programs operating in the country where they serve as our lead representatives. So, here's the problem that it solves. For certain defense cooper cooperation programs, the law requires the chief of mission to sign off, to give or withhold concurrence, and the ambassador is the gatekeeper. But ambassadors are diplomats, not military officers. Many have told us plainly that they are, quote, " not well equipped" to assess these programs. They may not know what questions to ask. And when one ambassador hands off to the next, the details of these programs can simply get lost. So that's a real gap, and we're asking the Chief of Mission to be a check, but they need the training in order to do that. This provision addresses that issue, which has been well documented, including in a twenty twenty-two report by the Brennan Center for Justice, which found that those at the State Department, quote, struggle to understand and gain insight into the reach of US hostilities in the countries these programs operate in. So, I appreciate your support in including in the base text of H R ninety eighty six, language regarding the creation of a program to train train chief admissions on these authorities. My amendment here today additionally includes specific references to the DOD program that the training should cover and strengthens the requirement that chiefs of mission undergo the training with a waiver included. Uh, I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Right. Member Beeks, you wanna be recognized.

Yeah, I I strongly support this amendment. This language would train our ambassadors on the authorities requirements and limitations applicable to defense cooperation programs that we have with countries so that they are better prepared to engage with foreign partners uh partners. This is just a common sense uh amendment to make sure that our folks are prepped, make sure that our folks are educated on the issues. I mean, I can even sometimes uh, you know, being on this committee on foreign affairs uh not on uh, Hask. So, I've had to make sure that I've become knowledgeable about some of the Hask issues. I think there's something similar here, and so I strongly support the gentleman's uh, amendment.

Recognized myself, I support this amendment. Chiefs of Mission play a vital role in overseeing US security cooperation and partner force assistance maker making proper training on these authorities pretty essential in my opinion, but real world operational demands can make it very difficult for a chief of mission to complete the required training before arriving on their post. This amendment creates a limited hundred and eighty day waiver that requires the secretary to certify to Congress, the reason for delay, preserving accountability while providing necessary flexibility. So thank you for your work on this. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Castro. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

R roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested. We'll do it at a later time. Somebody else have an amendment at the desk here?

This one. Uh, Castro.

Castro.

I still have a few.

Um Um, number one twenty.

The amendment's been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute,

Further reading is dispensed with.

number one.

Representative Castro, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you, chairman. Um, this is a straightforward, hopefully what you'll consider, good government provision. and if it's squarely within what this committee says that it cares about, making our fight against drug trafficking, organized crime, and corruption actually work, the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, INL, runs some of the most important programs we have in the Western Hemisphere and around the world. Counter-narcotics. Breaking up transnational criminal organizations. Going after money laundering and illicit finance. Building the rule of law in countries where corruption is the real national security threat. These are complicated programs with their own legal authorities, their own programmatic requirements, and real human rights obligations attached to them. The people we ask to administer and oversee this assistance need to understand all of those things. So this provision sets up training for them. It covers the legal authorities and requirements behind INL's narcotics and law enforcement assistance. It covers countering countering organized crime, money laundering, and illicit finance. It covers anti-corruption, and promoting the rule of law. And it covers the human rights obligations that govern this assistance under the Leahy law. When we train and equip foreign security forces, getting the human rights vetting right is necessary. The training would make sure the officers carrying out this work are equipped to do it well, lawfully, and effectively. And I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.

Thank you, member Beeks.

Yeah, I support uh Representative Castro's amendment. Uh, that would ensure that, uh, human rights are included in all curriculum developed for our foreign service. I think that when we are training our foreign service officers, they, you know, we need to make sure that we're talking about, uh, human rights and humanitarian issues. Uh, it is, uh, uh, the values of which, uh, we should have as, as a, as, as Americans, uh, and the values of, uh, human life. Uh, and uh, to make sure that when we're talking about it, uh, that we understand it. And so the training of, of, of, of, of our officers, uh, become really, really important. Uh, so therefore the curriculum should, uh, be a part of that, uh, so that they get the appropriate training. Uh, and we make sure that as we are serving, uh, individuals, uh, on for- in, in foreign lands, uh, with our allies especially, that we do so in a humanitarian way. So, I, I

Recognize myself, I also support this amendment. INL administers billions of dollars in narcotics control and law enforcement assistance around the world. We want foreign service members responsible for managing those programs to be properly trained uh in the the authorities that they have that govern the work that they're doing uh so I support the amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment by Representative Castro. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. If any of the chair of the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested. It'll be rolled to a later time. Mister Castor, you have another amendment?

Yes, chairman, uh one twenty one.

Clerk will distribute and report it.

The amendment's been distributed by Electronic Device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and twenty one.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Castor, you're recognized.

Thank you, chairman. Uh, we spend a lot of time in this committee talking about the cartels, about the violence they commit, the drugs they traffic, the people they exploit. And we absolutely should do that. But there's one part of the conversation that too often gets left out of the discussion, and it's somewhat of an uncomfortable one. The cartels and the gangs tearing up overwhelmingly with guns that come from our country, United States. The vast majority of the firearms recovered from criminal organizations in Mexico and Central America and in the Caribbean, were sourced, originated in the United States. And that's what the tracing data shows. So if we're serious about the cartels, then we have to be serious about the guns that they're using. You cannot fight these organizations while ignoring the thing that makes them deadly. This amendment is a practical common sense step toward doing that. The ATF runs a system called E-Trace, a web-based tool that lets law enforcement trace a recovered firearm back to its source. It's a powerful instrument. When a gun gun is recovered at a crime scene in Mexico, or in the Caribbean, E-Trace can help follow that weapon back up the chain to the dealer, the straw purchaser, or the trafficking network. But the system only works if our partners in the region are actually using it. And right now, there are real gaps in participation across the hemisphere. My amendment directs the State Department through the INL Bureau, working with our Western Hemisphere experts and in coordination with the ATF to help close those gaps. to work with law enforcement agencies across the region to increase their participation in each race. And it specifically includes something simple but important, translation services. Because one of the reasons participation lags is that the tools and the data aren't fully accessible to our Spanish-speaking partner agencies.

Yes.

That's a fixable problem, and this amendment fixes it. This doesn't restrict any American citizens' rights under the constitution. It doesn't regulate a single firearm sale. It's about one thing, giving law enforcement, ours and our partners, the ability to trace these weapons, identify the traffickers, and shut the networks down. It's about information and cooperation and catching criminals. And it asks the State Department to report back to this committee in two years on how it's going so that we can hold them accountable. If we wanna take on the cartels, we have to choke off the flow of guns that arm them. This amendment is a step toward exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.

Thank you, Member Binks.

Yeah, I I support this amendment. Uh, this amendment will help increase cooperation between the United States and countries in our own hemisphere to track down the individuals that are arming, equipping, and supporting transnational crime organizations. We know that these guns and Munitions were not manufactured in many of our borders countries, especially to the south. As Representative Castro said, they came from the United States. So having a cooperation with our countries in our hemisphere to track down and using uh various forms of information is really important. It also then lets the cartels know that they're not gonna be able to c- move around and get weapons, or whether they're here in the United States or in one of these other countries, with impunity. I found you know, for example, just using as an example what's taking place in Haiti right now. Uh, you you see individuals who are part of the cartels, who's doing various things and they try to come back and forth to the United States. They cover up their tracks with where their weapons are coming from. They think they have complete impunity. This helps stop that. Helps makes our hemisphere a better and safer place. It's working collectively together, so this is a well thought out, and I believe very important uh uh uh amendment uh that does not infringe, as Mister Castro said, on Americans' uh uh right into arms. Uh so this is something that should be bipartisan. I think it would send a strong and the right message to the cartels. that you're not gonna be able to move around with impunity, we're gonna track you down, and we're gonna hold you uh accountable. Now you're back.

Recognize myself, I support this amendment. It's a good common sense uh law enforcement cooperation amendment for uh the United States ATF working with Mexican law enforcement as an example. Um so it promotes good work across uh multinational uh law enforcement agencies. Uh any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Castro. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed say no. If any of the chair of the ayes have it. Uh.

Roll call.

Roll call has been requested. Uh, that will be rolled till later time. Do you have another amendment, Mister Castro?

Uh, I do, Chairman. No, one twenty two.

Clerk will Clerk will distribute an report.

The elec amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and twenty two, to HR and Mat.

Or the reading is dispensed with. Representative Castro, go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman. And and Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I have a small edit to the text, uh changing the number five on page two, line fifteen to a three. Um, this was requested as we were discussing with the majority staff uh request a change of of which I'm supportive.

Without objection, so ordered.

Uh, so before I begin, I wanna thank my colleagues and and representative, including Representative Young Kim. She and I have worked together for years on improving the effectiveness of US foreign assistance. on making sure that what we do abroad is rigorous, accountable, and actually delivers results. And this amen- amendment is very much in that spirit. So, I'm grateful for that long working partnership. This is about making sure every dollar of foreign assistance go as f- goes as far as possible in delivering the maximum impact possible. It establishes the development innovation ventures program into law. It essentially brings a venture capital type approach to foreign assistance. Instead of committing enormous sums up front and hoping for the best, this program funds new ideas at a small scale, tests them rigorously to see what actually works, and then scales up only the solutions that have proven they can improve lives cost-effectively. It's evidence tiered, we take modest risks at the early stage, and we put the bigger money behind only what the evidence has already validated. I said for years, going back to my work on development innovation a decade ago, that this is some of the smartest work that we do. Development innovation isn't about spending money, it's about delivering results. The ideas, the technology, and the approaches that come out of these programs come back and benefit Americans as well. And we're not just giving, we're building things that work and learning what works in ways that serve our own country. What I appreciate about appreciate about this model is that it's built around exactly the principles this committee says it cares about. rigorous evidence of impact, cost-effectiveness, and the potential to scale and become financially sustainable. And those are the three core principles written into this amendment. With that, are you all back? Ranking member Meeks.

Yeah, I support this amendment, with surge's funding to innovative organizations transforming the ways in which we uh implement development assistance programs overseas. This program supports uh common sense solutions that improve millions of lives, promotes great efficiency in foreign aid, and ensure greater value for the American taxpayer. So I'm proud to uh support and ask my colleagues also to support this measure. You're back.

Any other members? Recognize myself, I support this amendment uh it will help uh ensure that the actual impact of our programs abroad uh is uh advancing every dollar that is used, in a very specific and pinpointed way, uh working to working to uh, make for better cost savings, budget savings, not waste, fraud and abuse. So I support the amendment. Uh, anybody else? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed say no. Penny, the chair, the ayes have it.

Roll call.

Roll call's been requested, that'll be done at a later time. Do we have another amendment to do? Castro, go ahead.

Uh, yes, Chairman, number one twenty four.

Clerk will distribute an report.

The amendment's been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and twenty-four to HR.

Are the readings dispensed with? Representative Castro, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. For years now, we've organized our strategy around a region we call the Indo-Pacific. It's a recognition that the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean form a continuous theater where US foreign and defense policy must be coordinated. But if you look honestly at where our attention, our resources and our planning have actually gone, The truth is it's been weighted heavily towards the Pacific. The Indo, the Indian Ocean, has too often been an afterthought. So my amendment is in plain terms about putting the Indo back into Indo-Pacific. And this is not a small piece of the map. The Indian Ocean is home to some of the most critical trade routes on Earth. A huge share of the world's commerce and energy moves through these waters. We spend a great deal of time in this committee, rightly, on what challenges the people's of China poses to the United States. Well, the Indian Ocean is where a lot of that competition is actually playing out. Beijing understands that. For years, methodically, China has been building ports, extending loans, and expanding its presence across that region, while we engaged in fits and starts. This amendment requires the State Department, working with the Department of Defense, to do something straightforward, develop an actual strategy for the Indian Ocean region and report that to Congress. It asks the hard questions we should already be answering. Where do our int- where do our interests align with the countries of the region? What exactly is China doing country by country? Where are the gaps in our own diplomatic presence, including the island nations where we don't even have an embassy? And what would it actually take to close those gaps? I wanna draw attention to a few things this review insists on. First, it puts the partnership with India at the center, where it belongs. Deeper security cooperation, deeper economic ties. India is the anchor of the Indian Ocean, and you cannot have a serious Indo-Pacific strategy that treats the world's most populous democracy as a secondary concern. And second, it takes the Quad seriously. The Quad, the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, is one of the most important forums we have. Just last week, in this room, Secretary Rubio reaffirmed the importance of the Quad partnership and said that there will be a there will be leaders' meeting a leaders' meeting before the end of the year. We should be deepening our work with the Quad, which has an enormously consequential role in the Indian Ocean. This review requires us to lay out concretely how we deepen that cooperation. And third, and this matters to me, it doesn't treat this as a purely military question. It asks about diplomacy, about economic connectivity, about whether we have enough diplomats and embassies on the ground. Because in this competition, presence and partnership are how we win. You don't win the Indian Ocean by retreating from it. There's broad agreement on this committee that we need to compete and that we need to stand with India and our partners. I'll add that this is not a new idea of mine. It's a priority that I've worked to advance before. In the hundred and eighteen Congress, I introduced this language as a bill with Rep. Issa and the Senate version was led by Senators Tim Scott, Tim Kaine, and Marco Rubio, now Secretary of State, and Chris Coons. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.

Thank you, member Meeks.

Yeah, I support this amendment which requires the State Department to submit a strategy for engagement with the region. Similar language was already included in H R fifty three hundred and the idea of an Indian Ocean Strategic Review has a distinguished uh bipartisan history as a stand alone built in the hundred and eighteenth and the hundred and seventeenth congresses. I applaud again Mister Castro uh for his dedicated engagement on this issue and I hope that uh with this amendment we will finally have language to get this concept over the finish line. Thank you, Mister Castro, and I yield back.

Recognize myself, I support the amendment. The Indian Ocean is one of the fronts in great power competition uh with China. They've spent decades uh quietly building ports, bases, political influence across the region. I look forward to reading uh what comes forward after this amendment uh is enacted into law. Uh, anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment by Representative Castro. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Penny, the chair, the ayes have it.

Roll call.

Roll call's been requested. We'll do that at a later time. I believe we're gonna go to uh

One more.

last one for Castro and then one for Mister Davidson, and then we will uh recess after that for votes.

Uh, one twenty nine.

Clerk will distribute and report.

The elect uh amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment

Further reading is dispensed with. Representative Castro, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman. This amendment is about a simple proposition, that when the United States spends money fighting crime, drug trafficking, and supporting the rule of law abroad, we should be able to prove that the foreign assistance works. For decades, the United States has spent billions of dollars on counter-narcotics and law enforcement assistance across the Western hemisphere and around the world. And too often, it's hard to quantify the actual impact or results of these programs. We funded counter-narcotics programs that didn't have clear goals, didn't have real buy-in from the host governments, and didn't have any plan for what happens when the US money runs out. We'd fund something for years, the funding would end, and the problem would still be there and sometimes get even worse. This amendment calls for a different approach, and it does so by following the recommendation of the Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission, the bipartisan commission this committee itself created. One of that commission's central recommendations was to move towards compact based assistance modeled on the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the MCC. That's exactly what this amendment establishes. Here's how a compact works and why it's better in this case. We work jointly with a partner country to identify what the most pertinent law enforcement drug trafficking or rule of law challenges that country faces. And then we make a durable commitment to supporting their efforts to address those very issues. And first, it's results-oriented. A compact isn't an open-ended check. It's a multi-year agreement built around specific, clearly defined objectives, a discrete law enforcement or counter-narcotics goal that we and the partner country actually share and agree on, with regular benchmarks to measure whether we're actually making progress. We define what success looks like up front, and then we track it. Second, it requires real buy-in from the host government. This is the part that matters most. A compact requires the partner country to put its own money on the table, a meaningful financial contribution, on top of what they already spend, and to increase that contribution over time. Because a program only works if the country we're helping actually owns it. We're not doing this to them or for them, we're doing this with them. And third, it's built to end. Every compact requires a strategy for how the partner country sustains after our assistance expires and increasing cost share so that over time the country takes ownership of the issue itself. The goal is not permanent dependence or assistance from the United States. The goal is to help a country build the capacity to handle the problem on its own, and then we can step back. Finally, Mister Chairman, the compacts that this amendment would require include significant protections to ensure that these compacts are transparent, and follow the law, including regular certifications from the Secretary of State on the status of the compacts and independent reviews by the Government Accountability Office. This is how foreign assistance should work. Clear goals, shared investment, measurable results, a path to the partner standing on its own, and full transparency to Congress and to the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back.

Ranking member Beeks.

Yeah, I support this amendment, which will increase our cooperation with partners across the globe to set and achieve uh anti-crime and law enforcement goals. Very important. Uh, ask all members that support a year back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment. I thank Representative Castro for working with me on it. It authorizes foreign assistance compacts to counter narcotics trafficking and strengthen law enforcement partners abroad so I appreciate the work. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Castro. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. If any of the chair of the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Roll call.

Roll call has been requested. We'll roll that till a later time. And Mister Davidson, do you have an amendment at the desk?

I don't have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will distribute and report.

The amendment has been just been distributed by electronic device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Davidson. You are recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chairman, this amendment prohibits the Secretary of State from expending funds or taking any action to fire an officer for having pro-life views. Um, I offer this amendment to prohibit the Secretary of State or the State Department from firing an individual who holds pro-life views. We cannot allow future administrations the ability to fire State Department employees simply because they believe that life begins at conception. This is a common sense amendment. ensure that the right to life is respected, while the uh Hyde Amendment and Helms Amendment, Mexico City Policy, all current policies of the United States. We know some people disagree on that, but um having your own view on it, while often associated with religious freedom, could be cited as a policy difference. I think it's important to protect this view, and uh I encourage support for the amendment. I yield back.

Ranking member Beeks.

Yes, I I strongly oppose this amendment because it's another unnecessary measure before us today. No one at the State Department is in danger of being removed from their position, due to their personally held anti-choice views. If this were a more serious effort, the amendment would bar the removal of officials based on any views they hold on reproductive re- reproductive freedoms. But that's not what this amendment does. So I'm not gonna allow this mark-up to be, and it should not be, uh manipulated for the purpose of advancing uh culture war amendments. Uh and that's what this does. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure a year back.

Recognize myself. I urge strong support of this amendment. Uh State Department should recognize the value of human life. How often are we in this room uh where somebody's talking about uh or actually casting blame that if the United States of America doesn't send the the money of its taxpayers abroad, that somebody could lose their life. Uh, it should be recognized the intrinsic value uh of human life uh at conception. So I appreciate this amendment. No employee should face termination just because they hold pro-life beliefs. Uh, and this m- amendment would prohibit removal of federal employees based upon those views. Uh, this provision aligns with an amendment I supported during consider of the State Department. authorization bill and it reflects the committee's uh broader commitment to conscious protection. And I thank you, Representative Davidson uh for your work on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support. Anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Davidson. Davidson, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.

No.

Pending the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. Roll call vote has been requested and we will roll that vote until later. Uh, the committee will stand in recess until I believe we will reconvene around two fifteen hopefully if uh the vote's closed on time and we can get back here. Just opening this up to make sure the system's up and working. Committee postponed further proceedings on reporting HR nine zero eight six Foreign Service Modernization Act favorably to the house, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the house with a favorable recommendation. Members will vote utilizing the electronic voting system and the clerk will open the vote and this will probably be open for a little bit till everybody gets here. No need to be in order. You got time before everybody gets here. Maybe.

I think we should probably do it in the office. They came all the way from the trip.

which one is this Have all members voted? Any member wish to change their vote? Clerk shall close the vote and report to the telly.

On this vote, the ayes are thirty eight, the noes two.

All right. The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table and staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes. Committee postponed further proceedings on reporting H R one nine three nine, the US engagement in Sudanese peace act has amended favorably to the house on which the aye is prevailed by voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the house with a favorable recommendation members will vote utilizing the electronic voting system the clerk will open the vote.

Yep, take care.

Just a moment. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

the lighting is really bad, and the lights are all too bright, and the lights are too bright,

All members voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Clerk shall close the vote, report the tally.

On this vote the ayes are thirty four, noes five.

The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Without objection, staff is authorized to make, to Staff uh without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.

Um alright, let's pause for a second. Um yes. Um those that's gonna be all the votes for right now.

Once again, I'm gonna pass.

That is all the votes for today. We will resume amendment debate and we will vote on the amendments at a later time. So, everybody is aware.

Um, ninety eight seven. Um, do we have any

Seven.

We have any further amendments on H R nine eight seven? Mister Rocheski, I believe you're up.

I do, Mister Chairman. Amendment desk. Alright.

Clerk shall report, distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed by electronic device.

Without objection, further reading is dispensed with. Mr. Ocheski, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The cost of living crisis is at its core a housing crisis. Today, more than seventy-five percent of homes across the country are unaffordable for the typical American household. We should be working to ease that burden, especially for those who dedicate their careers to advancing our national security and representing the very best of our country. Under the military system, the Basic Allowance for Housing provides tax-free housing support every year to roughly one million service members. By comparison, the Foreign Service employs about fifteen thousand people, most of whom are assigned overseas. But unlike military personnel, Foreign Service officers assigned to domestic posts posts away from their home residents, receive no housing assistance. They're expected to cover the full cost of housing at their assignment while continuing to maintain their primary residence. For example, a Maryland resident assigned to a State Department post in Anchorage receives no housing allowance despite being stationed far from home. This amendment would change that. It would establish a basic allowance for housing for members of the US foreign service assigned to domestic posts modeled on the DOD's existing program. It would also help address a growing recruitment challenge. The department has struggled to attract foreign service officers to DC and other domestic assignments, and housing costs are a major reason why. At its core, this is a common sense step to bring parity between the foreign service and the military both of which require frequent relocation in which way in ways that civil service does not i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back

well any further

any further

um

discussion

discussion

uh mister meeks ranking members recognized

i support this amendment as it will support foreign service employees were reassigned within the united states over fifty miles from their home really important you know we had some that was stuck to reassigned uh left out and they didn't could not get back home. So this is a very important amendment and I wanna thank uh Congressman uh O Oshavsky for uh producing it and uh and I think we all should uh support this amendment. You're back.

Gentlemen, yielding further discussion. Recognize myself, I I oppose this amendment whilst I support the goal of extending benefits that members of military receive to our front-line diplomats. This amendment was brought forward with little Notice with there's no prior consultation with this committee, department of state, or the appropriators. We don't know the cost. It would likely run into the millions of dollars. There's no clear allowance structure. Uh, and this is not the kind of change we should be making without that kind of information. I'd welcome to work with the sponsor of this effort in the future, once we have time to properly consult with the appropriators and the department. But for now, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Yes.

Anything else?

Any further discussion?

So, we have

Without objection, further reading.

no more questions.

No, nope. Mrs. McBride.

Um, uh, sorry.

Representative McBride.

Madam Miss McBride, recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um, and I wanna thank the, uh, Chairman and Ranking Member for their bipartisan work on the bills this committee is considering today. While we've moved past consideration of the Foreign Service Modernization Act,

Okay.

I do wanna come and speak in support of Representative Lawler's bill, and I'm pleased that it just passed this committee. The Foreign Service Modernization Act makes critical updates to the Foreign Service Act to ensure our foreign service officers are equipped to meet the challenges of today's foreign policy and that our diplomats have the tools and support they need to succeed overseas. I'm especially proud that my bill, the Stop Scamming Americans Act, was included in this bipartisan process. Every day people in Delaware and across the country receive the k- same kinds of scammed texts and calls. A message claiming they owe money for an unpaid toll. a fake package delivery notice directing them to a suspicious link, a caller pretending to be their bank, their utility company, or even a loved one in distress. These scams have become a fact of daily life. I've blocked dozens of numbers on my phone, I know I'm not alone, and yet new scam messages continue to appear every day. For many Americans, this is more than just an annoying call or text. In a matter of minutes, a scammer can take hold of personal information, access financial accounts, and transfer money. And the results are devastating. And what's often not recognized is that these scams are not the work of isolated bad actors. They're sophisticated transnational criminal organizations targeting Americans at a massive scale. Americans are losing an estimated one hundred and nineteen billion dollars to online scams every year. The FBI received more than one million complaints related to internet crime last year. Seven point seven billion dollars was stolen, from older Americans in twenty twenty five alone. Sadly, in many cases, these criminal enterprises are also connected to human trafficking. In countries across the world, victims are trapped in scam compounds, threatened, abused, and forced to target Americans. And there are widespread reports of corruption and government cooperation that allow these lucrative crime rings to grow. This is not simply a consumer protection issue. It is a human rights issue, a national security issue, and a foreign policy issue. That's why our diplomats must be prepared to engage with foreign governments on this challenge. My legislation authorizes training on international scam syndicates for chief submission deputy chief submission and foreign service officers assigned to countries where significant on-line scam activity targets Americans. In order to take down these crime rings, our diplomats must understand where these networks operate, how they move money, how they exploit vulnerable people, and what tools are available to work with our allies to dismantle them. We should be using every tool available to protect Americans from scams, and that includes diplomatic tools that can help prevent, detect, and respond to foreign scammers. Because scammers are stealing from our constituents every single day, and our government should not just be aggressive in going after them, but should use the full might of our diplomatic efforts, I'm proud that my legislation was included in today's bipartisan bill. Thank you, and I yield back.

Do you know if that yields any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Olszewski. Those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed signify by saying no. No. And the opinion of the

Aye.

chair and the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

Request a roll call vote, please, for sure.

Roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Mr. Olszewski.

Mister Olszewski is recognized.

Olszewski. Thank you, Mister Chairman,

I apologize.

uh, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed electronically.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number seventy one to HR nine zero.

Objection for the reading of the amendments dispensed with. I'm recognize the gentleman for five minutes.

Th- thank you very much, Mister Chairman. And I I recognize the name is difficult, so all all good and no worries.

And my apologies.

No, no, no worries. I understand. Um, uh, before I begin, I I do wanna thank uh Chairman Mast and his team for working with my staff to negotiate this amendment in a bipartisan way. Uh, as this administration continues to implement its foreign policy agenda, we know that this committee cannot focus so heavily on competition that we ignore the very real labor and worker right abuses that are so prevalent across the supply chains that fuel it. Across the world, stronger work protections and labor standards are consistently associated with faster per capita GDP growth. When working conditions improve, productivity rises, profitability increases, and firms become more competitive in global markets. And that's good for our business. Strong labor standards abroad help level the playing fields that US firms can compete on quality and innovation, instead of being undercut by forced labor, child labor, and unsafe factories. If we're serious about resilient sly supply chains and fair competition for US companies and workers we have to be strengthening US leadership on workers' rights. This amendment moves us in that direction. It would train our foreign service officers in international labor and economic policy so they can identify and address forced labor, child labor, and unsafe conditions in supply chains. It is a practical step that aligns our foreign policy with our values and our economic interests. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields, any further discussion? Um, Mister Meeks is recognized.

I support this amendment, which is additive to the trainings mentioned in section seven O eight. To include more information on international labor standards and rights, I think that we've gotta protect and make sure that we have standards uh for individuals throughout the world. So I support this amendment and hope we all do. You're back to balance my time.

Gentlemen, yielding for discussion. Uh, I recognize myself, I support this amendment. It authorizes Secretary to create a training program for the State Department. personnel on internationally recognized workers' rights and international economic policy. Part of the State Department's mission is to hold foreign governments to a high standard when it comes to labor standards and workers' rights. This directly helps US businesses by leveling the playing field. It will strengthen the State's ability to do that. I want to thank uh Representative Olchowski for working with me to ensure the language of this amendment that it is bipartisan. So I support this amendment, recommend my colleagues do as well. There being no

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion? There being no further discussion, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Olchowski. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed signify by saying no. And the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the am- amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.

Roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? Mister Lawler is recognized.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall report the amendment. Distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed by electronic device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and ninety-one to HR

Without objection, further reading the amendments dispensed with the gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment adds the text of my golf Diplomacy Act to the underlying bill before this committee. In recent years, the United States has significantly improved our relationship with the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf region. During his first term, President Trump worked diligently on the Abraham accords with Bahrain and UAE to normalize their diplomatic relationships with Israel and improve economic growth. Amidst his current term, the president has prioritized enhancing our security partnerships, with these partners and additional Gulf countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Today, the US and our Gulf allies have a lot in common. We are working together to counter Iran and Iran-backed terrorism, and we are steadfast in our efforts to improve economic opportunity and investment in the Middle East. At a time when coordination is key, it is critical that our partners feel represented in Washington and for US government engagements. That is why I have worked with the chairman and the administration to diplomatic privileges and immunities uh to give diplomatic privileges and immunities to the gulf cooperation council or the gcc this will allow the gcc to set up an office in d. c. and will ensure a centralized diplomatic channel to facilitate the multilateral relationships we are continuing to build with our gulf allies i look forward to continuing to work to pass this critical legislation and i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes today. Thank you and I yield the remainder of my time.

Gentlemen, yielding for discussion on the amendment. Mister Meeks is recognized.

Yeah, I support this amendment, which uh clarifies the same diplomatic privileges and immunities that the US affords to foreign mission personnel, are provided to Gulf Corporation Council diplomat station in the United States. While individual Gulf country embassy personnel already afforded these principles and privileges and immunities, This amendment clarifies that the Gulf diplomats serving here under the auspices of the GCC itself are handled in the same manner. So I agree with the gentleman and uh I'll support this bill.

Gentlemen uh yields, any further discussion on the amendment? There'll be no further discussion or yield to myself. I support this amendment to give the present discretionary authority to extend privileges and immunities to the Gulf Cooperation Council. The GCC is one of America's most important regional security and economic partners. Extending these protections would strengthen our institutional engagement on shared priorities, including countering Iran, counterterrorism, maritime security, energy security. It does not mandate any action and preserves full executive branch flexibility to set to act um to set the appropriate terms and conditions. Uh, so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment? Without further uh discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Waller. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed, signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair.

Paramin, I request a roll call vote.

Well, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendments agreed to. Gentleman has requested a roll call vote. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments? The gentleman uh from New York, Mr. Waller is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute the amendment.

Amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and ninety-two.

Without objection for the reading of the amendments to dispense with, I'm rec- uh I recognize the gentleman from New York for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds the text of my cutting passport backlog act to the underlying bill. Since joining Congress almost four years ago, we have received close to two thousand cases involving passports. And at this present moment, my office has over a dozen open passport related casework that we are still waiting for answers on. It's unacceptable. And that is why we need to give the State Department more resources to streamline the approval process for passport applications and renewals. My bill represents a targeted approach to fixing this problem that has inundated so many Americans. Specifically, it extends special hiring authority in state's Bureau of Consular Affairs to quickly hire an onboard qualified passport specialist. This authority will allow the bureau to bypass the longer, more traditional federal hiring process to ensure experts can get to work on passport backlogs right away. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, has assessed this authority as a key factor in improving service efficiency. I look forward to seeing this important amendment added to the bill before us today. Encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I yield the remainder of my time.

Gentlemen, yields any further discussion? There being no further discussion, let me say I support this amendment to extend critical hiring authorities for passport processing from three to five years. It's about putting American taxpayers first. It gives the department the flexibility it needs to quickly hire qualified personnel meet growing demand and prevent passport backlogs. These hiring authorities are already in place. This amendment will simply extend them for two additional years as new passport agencies open. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Lawler. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendments agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote's been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Chairman, I have a uh amendment at the desk.

The representative from Texas, Mr. Self, is recognized.

Uh, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment.

No, the uh clerk shall distribute the amendment.

Thank you.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment two, the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty.

Without objection for the reading of the amendments to dispense with, I uh gentleman from Texas, Mr. Self is recognized for five minutes.

Uh, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which would require the Department of State to develop a comprehensive strategy to restore stability to the Western Balkans. Less than two weeks ago, I led a Kodel trip to the region in Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I can tell you that the region is fragile, all of it. I am particularly concerned that once the Ukraine war is over, there will be intense chaos and significant hybrid war efforts from adversarial forces in the region. This would further intensify the existing civilian strife in the region, because the hatred among ethnic groups is real, the discrimination is real, the stagnation is real. It is absolutely vital that the Department of State prepare for chaos in the Balkans in a post-Ukraine war Europe. That's why I am leading this amendment to direct the Department of State to develop a clear strategy to address these challenges and strengthen America's leadership in the region. Among other provisions, the strategy would prioritize the assignment of US ambassadors throughout the Balkans. I would like to acknowledge and thank the administration for its June first uh list of nominations, which included ambassador nominees nominees for Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. However, there are still no nominee for North Macedonia or Kosovo, even though Kosovo is a key stabilizer in the Western Balkans. And North Macedonia, a NATO ally, is also dealing with alarming levels of instability. The strategy would also require recommendations to support Kosovo's independence and its future membership in NATO. Four NATO states, Spain, Greece, Romania and Slovakia, still do not recognize Kosovo's independence, posing a major barrier to NATO integration. The department must engage our allies to ensure we are all on the same page with respect to recognizing Kosovo's independence which is a major sticking point for instability in the region. The strategy would also assess Serbia's growing engagement with Russia, China and Iran, particularly in the technology and security sectors, and recommend ways to reduce that influence. The amendment further requires a review of sanctions options against individuals and entities that support the interest of Russia, China, Iran, and other entities uh that obstruct peace and regional stability efforts. It also directs the department to evaluate the effectiveness of sanctions targeting de-stabilizing actors in the region. With respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the strategy would examine the role of the office of the high representative and ways to support the country's progress toward true national sovereignty and self-reliance. While the Dayton Peace Accords were successful in stabilizing and developing the modern country, it was never intended to be a mechanism that lasts forever. The department must engage with Bosnia to ensure they make meaningful progress towards meeting the five plus two agenda and phase out the need for an internationally-led office of high representative. in order to ensure the country can become truly sovereign and self-reliant. The amendment also requires a plan to reduce dependence on Russian energy, strengthen regional infrastructure, and leverage initiatives such as the Three Seas Initiative to advance economic growth and connectivity throughout the region. Finally, the amendment affirms the strategic importance of the continued presence of US forces in Kosovo, and supports efforts to combat illicit weapons trafficking and transnational criminal activity that threaten both regional stability, security, and American interests. Excluding Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Western Balkans remain the most unstable region in Europe. Congress must ensure robust, measured engagement to ensure this regional tinderbox does not ignite the next major conflict in Europe. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? No further discussion. I recognize myself. I support this amendment, which directs the development of a strategy to reinforce Kosovo's sovereignty, counters malign influence from Russia, China and Iran, and prioritizes energy security, strengthens partnerships with regional allies. The Western Balkans is a strategically sensitive area where instability can spill into NATO territory. This is a common sense step towards regional security that aligns with the Trump administration's ongoing efforts in the region, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Self. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. And the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Roll call vote.

I request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This will vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Mister Chairman, I had a have an amendment at the desk.

Um, the clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty one.

Without objection, further reading of the amendments dispensed with. Uh, I ge- recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I rise in support of my amendment, which would require a justification to Congress every time a US commission, uh, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom recommends that a country be designated as a country of particular concern, and such country is not designated as one. Under the International Religious Freedom Act of nint uh, nineteen ninety eight, the president is required to designate countries as CPCs that engage in or tolerate systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. However, the department sometimes differs in its designation choices from the recommendations provided by the commission, which is a bipartisan, congressionally authorized commission that makes recommendations to Congress and the State Department on international religious freedom. I will note that we just voted to reauthorize this commission yesterday on the House floor. Congress created the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, because it recognized that decisions regarding countries of particular concern could be influenced by political considerations within the executive branch. Unfortunately, history has proven Congress right. For exam- for example, USERF has urged the designation of Nigeria as a country of particular concern. Nigeria remains one of the deadliest places in the world for Christians. With recurring attacks and mass killing recommendation, the Biden administration removed Nigeria from the CPC list in twenty twenty one. Congress deserves to know why when these decisions are made. I would like to thank the Trump and Trump administration for reinstating the CPC designation on Nigeria, and working tirelessly to put an end to the mass murder of Christians in Nigeria. This amendment does not limit the president's authority to make CPC determinations. It simply requires the administration to provide Congress with an explanation within thirty days whenever its determination differs from USERF's recommendation. That transparency will help Congress conduct effective oversight and ensure that our religious freedom laws are being implemented in the manner Congress intended. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? There being no further discussion, I recognize myself. I support this amendment. USERF was created as an independent watchdog on international religious freedom when its recommendations differ from the administration's designations. Congress deserves to know the reasons why. This amendment requires the president to brief Congress within thirty days when USERF recommends a country-for-country, a particular concern designation, but the president chooses not to designate it. This is a bipartisan, common sense measure that strengthens oversight, promotes religious freedom, without creating new authorities or costs. Therefore, I support this amendment. Uh, is there any further discussion?

I request a roll call vote.

Well, no, there'd be no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Self.

Is that really?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye? All opposed signify by saying no. And the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

And now I request a roll call vote.

And now a roll call vote has been requested in pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The gentleman from Tex- the clerk shall report the, distribute the amendment.

The amendment's been distributed by electronic device.

And the clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty-two.

Without objection for the reading of the amendments to dispense with, the gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I speak in strong support of my amendment to prohibit any funds in the general provisions bill H R nine zero eight seven from being used for abortion. There are a lot of amendments to this bill and we must make sure that nothing adopted in this bill can u- be used to pay for an abortion directly or indirectly. American taxpayers should never be forced to subsidize abortion, whether that is overseas or here at home. The State Department's job is to advance Americans' national interest, promote freedom, and protect human rights. not to export abortion on demand with our foreign aid and diplomatic resources. This amendment draws a clear line. Not one dime of US transp- uh, taxpayer monies will go toward funding abortions abroad. The American people have made it clear they do not want their hard-earned dollars used to end unborn lives in other countries. This is about fiscal responsibility, respect for life, and keeping our foreign policy focused on what truly matters. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and send a strong message that America stands for life, not for using our resources to promote the the destruction of life. Thank you and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Mister Meeks is recognized.

I oppose this amendment and Look. This amendment is completely unnecessary. There's nothing in the underlying bill that deals with abortion. Nothing. Says nothing about abortion. Nor does any part authorize spending our assistance dollars in contravention to US law. Doesn't do it. So, why we're doing this, I know it's a maybe it's politics or something of that nature, but we are abiding by and already have and know what is the US law. And the underlying bill does not controvert anything that's not already in law. So this just seems to be, you know, maybe it's politics or, you know, people have different views on different things. Uh but our law is our law. We intend on abiding by our law. Unlike sometimes what the president does. Uh, I don't know if he always, that's why we had to pass a uh number of bills last week. Um, that I thought were important. But anyways, I'm voting no. I hope everybody else votes no. Um, and I yield back.

Gentlemen, yielding for further discussion on the amendment. Uh, yes. General Lee is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment is a solution in search of a problem. It's both unnecessary and harmful. And here's why. The global gag rule already bans federal funds from being used for abortions. So this amendment is moot and pointless. It's already existing federal law, even though personally I think that should be repealed. But this amendment was drafted so poorly that we can't even assess how it would be applied. The term " indirectly funding abortion" is not defined in this amendment, and there is no precedent for that word in law. You can easily see a situation in which this applies so broadly that it shuts down global health programs the author didn't intend. Programs that fund maternal care could be swept up in this and shut down. Programs that help stop the spread of STDs and HIV, no longer funded. Foreign assis- foreign assistance, especially in the global health sector, is key to US national security. It's the first line of defense against diseases and pandemics that could reach our borders. It protects our economy from disruptions. and it projects American influence and leadership. Cutting off this assistance when again we are not even funding abortions is actually a roundabout way of stifling American leadership, and frankly, it's also just really stupid. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back.

Don't let yields back any further discussion on the amendment. Uh, I recognize myself, I I support this amendment. The US government should not fund abortions. It's as simple as that. Uh, this policy, as stated, is consistent with both the Foreign Assistance Act and existing appropriations laws, which I think strengthens this amendment. So I fully support this amendment. Thank the gentlemen for offering it. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? There'd be no further discussion. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Self. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed, signify by saying no.

No.

And the pin pinning the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

And I request a roll call vote.

And a roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall r- distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

The clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred.

Without objection further reading the amendment.

Uh, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which calls to attention the dangers of the build-up of the Russian military forces and other potential hostilities in the Baltic region, including the Swalke Gap, Kaliningrad and the Baltic States. As Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee, I convened a hearing last month to assess the strategic landscape in the Baltic region. And I can tell you that the threats to the Baltics are not theoretical. They are being deployed every day through cyber-attacks, malign influence, economic coercion, weaponized mass migration, and efforts to exploit ethnic and political divisions. Furthermore, some analysts have warned that Russia has developed an anti-access area denial or A two A D strategy centered around Kaliningrad, including layered air defense and missile systems designed to complicate NATO operations in the Baltic region. With this in mind, Russia could attempt to connect Kaliningrad to Belarus by seizing the Swalki Gap, the narrow corridor between Poland and Lithuania that serves as the Baltic States' only land connection to the rest of NATO territory. The outcome of the outcome of the war in Ukraine will have lasting implications for security in the Baltic region. Even if the conflict ends in a cease-fire or settles into a frozen conflict, Russia will likely rebuild and modernize its military capabilities, uh and is and is willing to do so and is doing so now. Throughout the war, Moscow has diverted many of its most capable units away away from its Western military district, to sustain its operations in Ukraine. However, once hostilities subside, those experienced and battle-tested forces could be redeploy redeployed closer to the borders of the Baltic States. Such a shift would significantly heighten security concerns and could create a far more dangerous confrontation between Russia and the West than existed prior to the full scale invasion of Ukraine. When the war in Ukraine is over, I expect the odds of a direct attack by Russia on the Baltic states will be high. The Baltic region occupies a critical place in the defense of East uh NATO's eastern flank. The Swalke gap remains a strategically significant corridor, connecting our Baltic allies to the rest of the alliance. Kaliningrad continues to serve as a heavily militarized Russian outpost on NATO's border. And Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania remain among America's most committed and reliable allies. The purpose of this amendment is straightforward. It simply reinforces the importance of sustained diplomatic attention to a region that is vital to trans-Atlantic security. As Russia continues to challenge the security architecture of Europe, Congress should make clear that the United States remains committed to the defense and security of our NATO allies and partners in the Baltic region. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Mister Meeks is recognized.

Now, I support this amendment, and I think everybody knows that I've been deeply concerned about the rollback of support to our Baltic allies. Um. And I think everybody should be clear-eyed about Russia's invasion into Ukraine, uh, and what took place there. Uh, I listened to the gentleman and he, uh, what he just said sounded strong. I wish I had been trying for fourteen months to get people to be more, and to put more sanctions on Russia. And to help Ukraine, to put Ukraine in a better position to fight back, because that also helps our countries, our Baltic States, and our NATO allies. Fourteen months it took, and it could have been easier. I wish we could have gone through regular order to get that bill on the floor, so that we could vote and show that we're supporting Ukraine and our Baltic States, uh, earlier. It took to have to do a motion of discharge, and I was able to get, I think, three uh Republican colleagues to sign on so that we could finally get it a vote on the floor. There was no doubt in my mind that once we got a vote on the floor that I thought that it would pass, as it did, even though there was attempts to prevent it from being on the floor. And I think that the Baltic States as well as the Ukraine would be in a better position today, had we not waited fourteen months. I think that things started happening even going back during the Biden administration when we stopped giving Ukraine what it needed then, because we couldn't pass an appropriation to give them more things at that particular time. So I agree with the gentleman on this. I just think that it's late. That Ukraine and our Baltic states would have been in a better position today, had we acted more timely. And fortunately because of the Ukrainian people who continue to fight and stand up against Russia's aggression, they're still here. They have cards to play, unlike the president said you have no cards and you d- can't win or, you know, when the president uh undressed Mister Zelensky in the White House. The Ukrainian people said we do. And they've come up and manufactured their own drones, of which we need now. and not asking them for. So, I'm gonna definitely support this. I hope as we move forward and we look at what's taking place with our NATO allies, that we stand by them. You know, I was just in Singapore and I heard the secretary uh for defense make a conversation that we may not be supporting our NATO allies in the way that we have in the past. So I I've got concerns. I would hope that we would do that in a bipartisan way to say that with this bill, with this amendment says, we're gonna stand and we're gonna support our Baltic allies. And by extension, that means we're gonna stand by NATO, and we're gonna stand by Ukraine, uh, and stop Russia's aggression because they are the only threat, the only threat to our Baltic allies and our European allies. And we've gotta stand together. And with that, I yield back.

Joe, and yields back any further discussion on the amendment, um, I recognize myself, uh, I support this amendment, which provides political support to our allies to recognize the commitment they have shown to their own defense. As this committee knows, my position on Ukraine has been strong and consistent against Mister Putin. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are strong US allies that take their defense seriously, and do not take American security guarantees for granted. Putin has made clear he does not view the Baltic States as legitimate, and this region could be the Kremlin's next target. Bolstering deterrence in the Baltics now is a cost-free way to help prevent future conflict in a strategically vital region. So I b- I support this measure. It strengthens uh our allies, supports them, and strengthens our NATO eastern flank. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And I yield back. Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by representative Self. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, these the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

And the clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty-four to HR

Without objection further reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I recognize the gentleman from Texas for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which establishes a sense of Congress that quote, the Gaza Health Ministry, officially the Palestinian Ministry of Health, and run by Hamas, is an untrustworthy and unreliable source of information pertaining to Hamas's war of terror against Israel. The GHM is a propaganda tool for Hamas terrorists. The ministry deliberately refuses to differentiate between civilians and terrorists with respect to its casualty reports." This is a necessary and reasonable amendment. However, there are still major news organizations relying on fraudulent data from the Gaza Health Ministry. The Gaza Health Ministry misinformation continues to be selectively used as a weapon to disparage Israel and frame them as the enemy and aggressor as they continue to defend themselves in war that they never wanted to be involved in. Israel has continued to make the necessary precautions over the duration of the conflict to quickly and efficiently evacuate their civilians. It's important that we never forget that on October seventh, twenty twenty-three innocent civilians, men, women, children and the elderly were raped, mutilated, executed in front of their families and taken hostage. At least one Holocaust survivor was killed, while others pressed against safe room doors to keep terrorists out. And I continue to say that if you're gonna commit these acts, these atrocities, please don't live stream them. Families were massacred in their homes. These acts were not collateral damage, they were intentional targeted barbarism. Similar acts of savagery have been propagated by Hezbollah in the north, and other Iranian-backed militias throughout the Middle East. Hamas will continue using tactics aimed aimed at turning any and every global opinion against Israel as they fight to eliminate Hamas' terrorists. Information from the Gaza health ministry should be viewed as a misleading source, to weaponize the conflict against Israel. Israel should not be expected to use uh to justify their use of force when a terror group continues to target and attack their their citizens and civilians. The use of propaganda being fed to media outlets solely allows Hamas to expand their reach and intensify their impact. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Mister Meeks is recognized.

No, I I think begrudgingly I'm gonna support this. But let me be clear, uh, casualty data from the Gaza Health Ministry should not be treated as gospel. The ministry does not distinguish between civilian deaths and combated deaths. And that is a serious limitation that must be acknowledged. It is also operating in a territory controlled by Hamas. a US designated terrorist organization, which raises obvious concerns about independence, transparency, and manipulation. Then at the same time I just wanted to do a check and I found some independent sources that confirm uh, what the Gaza Health Ministry's reports, those numbers seem to be very serious, but it's very similar. Uh, So I want to check that to see how off it was. So Now, that's why somewhat, you know, I said begrudgingly, some somewhat I believe that this amendment is largely a political distraction. And that's why I said I would be grud- begrudgingly support it because the core point, I think, is fair. Gaza Health Ministry's data has serious limitations. But Congress should not confuse this amendment with the serious Gaza policy. We should be focused on pressing the administration to re-engage on Gaza diplomacy, including efforts to improve access to all forms of appropriate humanitarian aid, aid to disarm Hamas, to alleviate Palestinian suffering, provide lasting security for Israel. We'd also we also should be focused on aggressive implementation of the twenty point plan for Gaza. Not as a talking point, but as a real strategy. A strategy that should stabilize Gaza. That would prevent Hamas from reconstituting control and move toward a durable political and security framework that could lead to a two-state solution. Palestinian civilians need relief. Israeli civilians need security. And Congress should not be fo- and Congress should be focused on those goals. Not simply making political points about flawed data. Everyone already knows that looking at that data we have to be careful and we have to handle it. That's why I look at independent agencies to try to verify what's going on and what I know. So I don't have to worry about a party that might be that have a vested interest in to try to uh uh come up with false dollar. But let's bring peace in the Middle East. Let's give the Palestinians a way to move forward. Let's give the Israeli citizens a way to have peace. When I go to the Middle East and I talk to both sides, that's what they want. And their screams seems to get in the way. And Congress should be focused on doing the twenty point plan. I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields or any further discussion on the amendment? Mister Wilson.

Thank you uh, Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I appreciate so much the amendment by Congressman Sell. Uh indeed, we need to keep in mind that the Hamas is a a puppet terrorist terrorist organization of the regime in Tehran. They have a covenant that was developed in August nineteen eighty eight, and it's very clear, and the, in the covenant, you can go to article seven, and it's in uh really plain English, that uh the goal of Hamas is to chase down every Jew behind a rock or tree, until you find the last Jew, and kill him. And so that is their uh plan, that is their goal. Uh it's not to have a uh peaceful society, it's to uh eliminate the existence of the people, I mean, state of Israel. Additionally, the Gaza Health Ministry is simply lies. Uh, it's just blatant propaganda. We know that they have released photos of children that they claim to have been killed in the conflict. And then, uh, sadly, you have, uh, complicit media like the New York Times that had front page picture of about forty children who were claimed to been killed by the, uh, actions of the, uh, Israeli Defense Force in self-defense of attacks by Hamas. But It turned out later that it was really clear from medical uh records that could be determined that these children had died of other causes uh and so uh the pictures of uh children were used uh for pure propaganda. Additionally, bodies have been placed uh in front of uh hospitals uh where the it's claimed that uh Israel had killed these particular children when it would, and again, it would didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they actually had diseases that they died from that had nothing to do with uh Israel's uh defensive war that they're in. And then finally, we have actually had the spectacle of rockets being launched by Hamas that fail. And they fall into a a building or a parking lot, and uh then they claim the health ministry claims that uh the Ghazan population were killed when it turned out that indeed it was clear that this was a failed rocket um by the uh launched by Hamas uh which was intended to attack the civilian population of Israel but by accident actually killed people in Gaza and so over and over again, I wanna commend the Congressman for identifying this, the people of the world need to know that the Gaza Health Ministry is simply a propaganda arm of a murderous terrorist organization. I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself. I support this amendment. The Gaza health ministry, as Mister Wilson said, is a little more than a propaganda arm for Hamas. It's naive to think the casualty figures it produces are anywhere near accurate. They routinely fail to distinguish between civilians and Hamas combatants in their reporting and play right into Hamas's information war against Israel. This is a straightforward measure that encourages more accurate and responsible uh reporting and protects the integrity of the con- congressional debate. Members can acknowledge civilian suffering, which should stop, while recognizing that data from the Gaza Health Ministry is incomplete, politically compromised, and routinely used without context. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Is there any further discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Self, All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed signify by saying no. And the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

I have an amendment at the chair.

The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty five.

Without objection.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I speak in strong support of my amendment to prohibit any funds in the general provisions bill HR ninety eighty seven from being used for gender pronoun usage, inconsistent with reality. This applies to business cards, email signatures, or any other professional identity elements by employees, contractors, and other officials of the Department of State. It does not apply to honorifics or legal titles before an individual's name, if they are consistent with the individual's biological sex. Biological sex refers to a person's immutable biological classification as either male or female, because yes, they're only two genders and they are unalterable. What is a she, fey? I guess I'm pronouncing that right. What is a they, per? How about a he, they, zee? This is mental illness. The State Department exists to represent the United States and advance our national security and interest, not to push radical gender ideology on our diplomats, embassies or international partners. And it means a lot to some of our international partners. American taxpayers should not be footing the bill for pronoun training, gender, transition policies or speech policing mandates in our foreign operations. This amendment restores common sense. Our diplomats should focus on real diplomacy, not enforcing radical social theories or policing language. Biology is not bigotry, and American resources must be used for American priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure our foreign policy remains grounded in reality i yield back

gentlemen yields uh is there any further discussion on the amendment mr. meeks is recognized

i strongly oppose this amendment because it has nothing to do with national security nothing at all or effective diplomacy nothing at all and everything to do with policing people's identities this kind of government mandated language rule is exactly the sort of overreach that colleague uh claimed to oppose. And there's no place in this country that values individual liberty and basic respect. You know, I had to reflect myself. You know, just going back a few years with my dad and looking at how maybe I or he was described. To be quite frank, one time I, in government you had to be, you couldn't say you were black.

Had to say you were a Negro. You classified me, what do you, so it is up to the individual to decide or say this is who I am. Don't have to hide it, don't have to be ashamed by it or anything else. Has nothing to do with effective diplomacy.

I mean, this is not who we are. This is not what our values should be. And no one is screaming, are you talking about effective diplomacy and effective intelligence? When the president just has appointed to somebody to be in ti- to be in charge of the intelligence agency who knows nothing about intelligence? That's what we should be focused on. That's what we should be talking about. That's where the danger lies. Let's get real here, folks. I oppose this. To me, this is un-American. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back any further discussion on the amendment. The gentlelady from California is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. So, as I'm sure my colleagues remember, we debated this amendment last year. And last year's version was written so carelessly that it would have barred me from using my own pronouns, she, her, even though no one disputes that I'm a woman. And when I pointed that out, the author told me, and I quote, "You're absolutely right." And while the author has addressed some of those issues, this amendment is still poorly conceived. Maybe because it's not addressing any real problem or issue that's affecting the work of the State Department or its staff. So I still have a fundamental question about this amendment that hasn't been addressed. Who enforces it? Is there gonna be an office at the State Department whose job it is to audit business cards and email signatures? If someone violates this, what happens to them? Will they be fired? My colleague likes to talk about speech policing. This seems like textbook speech policing to me. questions because the amendment doesn't say. The amendment would create a vague, bigoted, unenforceable mandate that exists solely to send a political message while exposing the State Department to potential litigation. And it invites a fight that the State Department will then have to defend. The government does not have unlimited power to force its own employees to state something they know to be false about who they are. That raises serious constitutional questions. And it's the State Department and the taxpayers who will have to pay the lawyers to answer them. We have better things to be debating on this committee than a recycled amendment that couldn't survive basic scrutiny last year and that still can't answer any important question about who enforces it or how now. I urge my colleagues to stop wasting our time and vote no on this incredibly stupid amendment. I yield back.

She only yields back any further discussion on the Mister Self is recognized.

uh

I thought you'd have a response thank you Mister Chairman

yeah thank you Mister Chairman I wanna thank my colleagues from across the aisle

but oh and the I'm sorry the gentleman has no remaining time unless another member is willing to yield Mister Wilson is recognized

I I yield to the distinguished Congressman Congressman Self

the the gentleman from South Carolina yields uh to Mister Self

uh I thank my colleague Mister Smith and I uh I want to thank my colleagues across the aisle for making the case, because I think both of us have said these uh letters up here have nothing to do with national security. And I think uh the ranking member said that they have nothing to do with uh effective diplomacy. So I wanna thank my colleagues across the aisle for making the case for this amendment. Uh And yes, there is no new spending for s- for new offices, although this morning we we supposedly added quite a few new spending offices uh in the State Department, so no, I didn't add a a new spending office uh in this amendment. And uh so I again thank my colleagues for making my case,

Will the gentleman yield?

and I yield my time.

Uh, gentlemen yields, uh is there any further discussion?

Will the Mister Wilson, will you yield?

Uh.

For the lady from California, yes.

He's a he's a true gentleman from South Carolina who yields to the gentle lady from California.

Thank you.

Hey, I was trained by fellow South Carolinian, Greg Meeks. Thank you.

Mister Self-Ed, I have a question for you. Do you think it should be someone's job at the State Department, with everything going on in the world, to sit there and audit every single person's business card and email signature to make sure it's compliant?

I don't engage in these rhetorical comments.

It's not rhetorical, it's literally a question. Do you do you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars to have a person's job at the State Department sitting and auditing every business card and email signature?

Given some of the things that we have cut back from the Biden administration,

Got some.

I think that uh we probably could have that done with many of the savings that we have, because we have cut back so many great I'm trying to answer your question. Uh, so I think that there will have to be someone. Now, it could be done in whoever's doing the printing office. We can figure out ways to do it. The human imagination is far more fertile than you're giving the State Department credit for. But, uh, this has to be adjudicated because it's, it's done. We as a Congress need to say that we need to quote the ranking member we need national security being addressed, we need effective diplomacy to quote the ranking member.

So so, Mister Self, you think national security is being addressed by using state department employees,

So

taxpayer dollars to literally audit every single business card and email signature of the thousands of employees at the State Department?

There won't be There won't be an audit necessary.

Oh, no?

This is very simple.

Yes.

Uh, you've gone to the extreme, which is what you do often, go to the Uh, we don't have to go to extreme to have this policy, uh, put in place.

No, actually, I think it's our job to think about what we're putting in place and how it's gonna be enforced and how someone could be enforcing it well or badly because we make laws,

And I've asked you, and I've asked you to support this amendment.

regardless of the administration.

Let's put this in place.

You wanna put you want someone at the State Department's full-time job to be looking at email signatures.

But once again, you're running

Well, we are in a war with Iran.

one again, once again, you're running to the extreme.

That is crazy. That is literally crazy.

Mister Chairman, I have been out of time, but I appreciate your indulgence.

Yeah, well, the gentleman has thirty five seconds remaining.

Yes, well, um, thank you, Mister Wilson, for yielding. I will just say with everything going on in the world, with everything we need, our diplomats who are already stretched incredibly thin to be dealing with, in Africa, in Iran, in Ukraine, the idea that we would be taking taxpayer dollars to audit every single business card and email signature of State Department employees to potentially be firing hard-working diplomats because you don't like how they identify is the definition of injecting culture wars into our diplomacy. And, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Don't lay yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Mister Mast is recognized. Chairman.

Thank you. Appreciate you having me. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Emeritus, look. Uh, I'm gonna offer my opinion in this as well, and I would just say very simply, I think the United States of America is best served with accuracy, with best, is best served by just stating the facts. And the fact of the matter is, for somebody born a man, every chromosome in their body is a male chromosome, somebody born a female, every chromosome in their body is a a female chromosome. That are the, that is the science. That is the facts uh of individual on this earth. And I think the United States of America is best served uh when we represent that fact. I yield back.

Chair Mielz-Bakke, for discussion, Miss Titus is recognized.

Well, I was just thinking maybe this would be a good job for Mr. Pulte since he has no other skills when it comes to the State Department. Uh, OK, Mister Meeks, you want me to yield to you? I'll yield. No, OK. Oh, I'll yield too, Miss Jacobs.

Yields.

Thank you. Not not to mention, not only are we talking about literally State Department employees' time reviewing and auditing all these business cards, and email signatures, the department's gonna be subject to litigation, those lawyer fees are very expensive, they're probably going to lose that litigation, those fees, these litigation fees are gonna be very expensive, this is such a stupid use of taxpayer dollars that is literally beneath this committee and beneath the State Department, and I can't believe for a second year in a row we are having this conversation. I yield, Miss Titus.

John A, John A yields back, any further discussion on this amendment? Um, I yield myself to, I'm always say as a former chairman of this committee, I support the current chairman and his assessment on this issue. Uh, the State Department needs to return to normalcy and ensure that official materials reflect biological reality rather than gender ideology. And I yield uh, uh, yeah, to the chairman.

I'll give one more second. I'd, it's an important conversation. What if somebody wants to identify as a leopard? or a bear or whatever else. We're gonna put, you know, Bear Smith on on their thing aside from the fact that, uh, you know, if that was their given Christian name, I mean, you know, an individual is what they are, and I think America is best served to recognize that. Thank you for the time.

Yeah, that's like, you know, uh, someone could say, if it's just that. And they, and it happened. They said Muhammad Ali wasn't, he couldn't use it. He had to be cached as clay. I mean, that's just crazy.

You identify a person as they say.

Mister. Not not Mrs.

Well, but what if

If this is, but there's no difference.

Well, let's have a let's have word that the time is is dominated by the chairman at this point.

If you will. Uh, I would say, uh, as to the ranking members' example of Cassius Clay, uh, Cassius Clay didn't ask to be called Mrs. Cassius Clay.

Well, there was a situation also where you have to add,

The gentleman the old time.

you added, you added You added miss, there was miss, missus. Miss? You could have said at that time you can't be classified as a miss. Just doesn't make sense. And it's a waste of time as the gentlelady said.

K. Any further discussion on the amendment? Without objection for uh the uh no there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by representative self. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment

Request a recall vote.

A roll call vote has been requested.

I'll take a recall vote, yeah.

Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote, let's have order. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments?

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Clerk shall report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and eighty-six.

Without objection, further reading of the amendment's suspense width. Mister Self, the gentleman from Texas, is recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment, which I've introduced alongside Congressman uh Titus, uh which would include Turkey in the review process used to protect Israel's qualitative military edge when evaluating arms sales and defense exports to Ankara. Over the past several years,

That's right, that's right.

Turkey has exhibited an alarming degree of support for and facilitation of support for Palestinian terrorism directed against Israel.

That's that's good.

Given Ankara's increasingly hostile posture toward the Jewish state, the United States should carefully examine how certain arms transfers to Turkey could affect Israel's security. This concern is especially relevant as Turkey continues to maintain a significant military footprint in Syria. Under the Arms Export Control Act and related statutes, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that US weapons transfers do not undermine Israel's qualitative military edge. Failing to apply this level of scrutiny to Turkey leaves a concerning gap in that process at a time when anchors' actions have become increasingly adversarial. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment, and I yield back.

Any further discussion? Ranking member Meeks.

Our representative self. I agree with you. This would make sense to me. I support this amendment because we must be clear-eyed about the impacts our arm sales have on the dynamics in the Middle East and in the Eastern Mediterranean, and to ensure that such sales advance US national interests. So, I've supported this amendment in the past, and I supported it in the state authorization process, and I support it here and now. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Any further discussion? Miss Titus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I too support this amendment and I urge its adoption. After Hamas's horrifying and despicable acts on October seventh, twenty twenty three, just about the entire world condemned the terror that Hamas wrought. But one person who didn't condemn it was President Erdogan of Turkey. Instead he praised Hamas as a liberation group, and instead called Israel a Zionist terrorist organization. He declared a day of mourning for Ismail Hanaya. He expressed condolences to Yaya Senwar, placed restrictions on exports to Israel, perpetuated anti-semitic rhetoric, and most concerningly he even threatened to invade Israel. In July, twenty twenty four, he said, just like we entered Karabakh, just like we entered Libya, we might do similar to Israel. This threat from a NATO ally, no less, is major escalation and something we should all be concerned about, particularly given Turkey's track record. In light of these threats, the amendment would try to place guardrails on weapons sales to Turkey. Specifically, the amendment requires certification any defense articles that Turkey seeks to acquire from the US would not adversely impact Israel's qualitative military edge and that the sale would be consistent with the national security interests of the United States. It's time to place a check on Erdogan and stop rewarding his bad behavior with US goodwill and military equipment. An ally that threatens our other allies is not a reliable ally. it is not someone we can adequately trust. So I urge passage of the amendment and I yield back.

Any further discussion? Representative Wilson.

Thank you very much, Chairman, I'm asked for your leadership. I oppose this amendment. This amendment goes against the policies of President Donald Trump and sadly empowers war criminal Putin and the terrorist regime in Iran, while undermining American regional interest. Turkey, of course, has been a NATO ally and a strong regional partner of the United States. Turkish drones have helped Ukraine significantly in the battle against war criminal Putin. Turkish support for free Syria has removed that country from Iran's orbit, resulting in the Syrian dictator Assad flea- fleeing to Moscow. As Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told me last year, Turkey is strongly supports removing war criminal Putin's bases in Syria. which are used in the airbase in particular as a logistics base to maintain the dictatorships, the Wagner dictatorships they have to oppress the people of Africa. Turkey is crucial for its relationships with Central Asia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, with its rare earths and minerals, as friendship with America has never been better with Central Asia. Turkey should always be appreciated as a dynamic member of NATO, with Turkish troops courageously serving side by side with Americans in conflicts from the Korean War onward. Everyone should visit the Korean War Memorial on the Mall, where Turkey is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated as being a great ally of the United States and a great member of the Ne- North Atlantic Treaty Organization. American law already bans the purchase of significant of defense articles such as S four hundred from Russia. President Donald Trump and Superstore Ambassador Envoy Tom Baric are working hard to deliver a solution to the F thirty-five issue, hopefully allowing the sale of F thirty-fives to Turkey if Turkey can divest the S S four hundred. This amendment would undermine this effort by President Donald Trump, and instead would signal to Turkey to move away from NATO and toward the war criminals of russia and iran with that again i oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose i yield back

any further discussion being no further discussion question now occurs on the amendment offered by representative self all those in favor say aye

aye

all those opposed say no

no

uh opinion of the chair uh the ayes have it and it's a roll call vote

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested, that will be rolled to a later time. Any further amendments?

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall report and distribute the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and eighty-seven.

Not objection, further reading is dispensed with. Uh, you are recognized, Mr. Self.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which was as a sense of Congress that Kosovo's full integration into NATO is a priority for United States national security interests in southeastern Europe. A sense of Congress derives from the bipartisan House Resolution twelve forty-six, which I introduced along Republican Congressman Mike Lawler and Democrat Congressman Richie Torres. Kosovo has proven to be a key strategic partner for the United States and NATO in the Western Balkans. In addition to their distinguished history of assisting in peacekeeping efforts, Kosovo's troops have trained alongside US military personnel, embraced NATO's interoperability requirements, and employed US weaponry as key components for their national defense. Furthermore, as adversarial forces continue to destabilize the region, adding Kosovo to the NATO alliance would serve as a necessary counterweight to discourage such hostile efforts. and prevent another global catastrophe from unfolding in the Balkans. I'd like to call attention, however, that the effort to bring our ally into the NATO fold has not come easily. Four NATO member states, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain have not yet recognized Kosovo's sovereignty. Because NATO operates by consensus, this lack of recognition is an obstacle to Kosovo's ability to formally advance toward membership including participation in key accession mechanisms such as the Partnership for Peace and the membership action plan. As such, my amendment urges these four allies to reconsider their positions. If we are to seriously consider closing a strategic gap in southeastern Europe that adversaries seek to exploit, frankly are exploiting, the United States must work with our allies to ensure broader recognition of Kosovo. which is essential to unlocking its path to NATO integration. Granting Kosovo membership to NATO will help promote regional stability, strengthen relationships, and serve vital US interests. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Any further discussion? Ranking Member Meeks.

Real quickly, I agree. Again, I agree with Mister Self. I support this amendment. Uh, Kosovo remains a staunchly pro-US and pro-NATO partner, and promote a great, promoting greater cooperation between NATO and Kosovo would help strengthen Kosovo, uh, as a partner, and I think it would also improve, uh, stability in the region. Uh, I think that, uh, it is extremely important, uh, that they know that and, and all that they've been through. So, I, uh, I support, um, Representative Selfs uh uh amendment and urges all to do the same.

Representative Wilson.

Thank you, Chairman Mast, and indeed unanimity right now. Uh, what a great experience, uh, the bipartisanship in regard to recognition of the Republic of Kosovo. It's really, uh, very, um, meaningful to me, my National Guard unit actually served there, uh, to assist in the independence of the country. uh we have seen them dynamically develop. And then uh it's really significant uh as an indication of their appreciation of the uh friendship with the United States, in front of the parliament is a life-size statue of former Foreign Affairs Chairman, Eliot Engel. And so I I I think uh Chairman Mast can correct me, but I don't think any other uh former foreign polit- uh foreign affairs chairman has a statue uh in front of any parliament except for Eliot Engel and uh Pristina Kosova. And so with this uh love and affection that we see, I wanna join Congressman uh with in supporting this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Yields-Beck, any further discussion? Recognize myself for a moment. I support this amendment which expresses that Kosova's full integration into NATO is a US national security priority in southeastern Europe. It outlines a pragmatic phased pathway towards membership for Kosovo, one of the most pro-American countries in the world. It has shown its commitment by spending two percent of its GDP on defense and is building security forces trained to NATO's standards. Integrating those forces into NATO would serve as a regional force multiplier. I thank the representative for his amendment. And any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by representative Self. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested, it'll be rolled till later, are there any further amendments?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall report and distribute Mister Self's amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Further reading is dispensed with, Mister Self, you're recognized.

Uh Mister Chairman, my amendment fixes a reporting requirement that has outlived its purpose. Section three fifty-three of the Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act created what is known as the Engel list. It directs the president to compile an annual list of corrupt and undemocratic actors in El Salvador Guatemala Honduras and Nicaragua, and to sanction the people on it. But the authority to impose those sanctions expired years ago. But the obligation to keep producing the list did not. So we're forcing the State Department to compile this report year after year, uh for sanctions that can no longer be imposed. My amendment simply ends it. This is exactly the kind of dead-end letter mandate Congress should be clearing off the books and cutting outdated redundant reports has been a priority of mine keeping this one in statute doesn't advance a single American interest. It's also unfair to our partners. Three of the four countries on the list, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, are friends we work closely with on migration, security and counter-narcotics. Singling them out in a standing name and shame report, with no sanctions authority behind it, isn't accountability, it's a needless diplomatic irritant. And let me be clear about what this does not do. It does not touch any active sanctions authority, and it does nothing to soften our posture toward the Ortega, Murillo uh regime or any other bad actor. This administration is still hitting Nicaragua hard. Just this week it restricted visas for more than one hundred additional regime officials, and family members over the death of political prisoner Brooklyn Rivera, bringing the total past twenty three hundred and fifty. Ending one defunct report changes none of that. This amendment is narrow and technical, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back.

Representative yields back. Anybody else seek recognition? Ranking member Meeks.

I have to oppose this amendment. Uh, I'm deeply concerned that passing this amendment would send a dangerous signal to criminal actors in guatemala honduras el salvador that the united states is stepping back from its commitment to accountability in the rule of law you know this you cannot credibly say that they are we cannot say credibly that they are we are fighting cartels while shielding the corrupt networks that launder their money, protect their interests, and help them evade justice. I think this amendment would embolden bad actors, weaken US credibility, and undermine our broader security interests in the region. This talks about individuals, any individuals. part of a hotel or something of that nature hypothetically whatever and you happen to be elected to something whether it's president or in the government or anything else you can't hide and report it state department should report it we can't protect individuals who are part of hotels and we know that they get involved in government they get elected and some who are not no one who's part of these cartels should be able to hide. And the report that we're talking about ending that requires the State Department to list individuals it finds to be engaged in corruption no matter who they are and no matter where we find them. If you're engaged in corruption, you're engaged in bribery, you're engaged in extortion, or you're engaged in money laundering, we should know about it, and we should hold them accountable, and not help them avoid it, even if they happen to be your friend, of say the president of the United States. Let's stand against corruption. Oppose this amendment a year back.

Any further discussion? Recognize myself. I support this amendment, which terminates the outdated reporting requirement for the so-called Engelist under United States Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act. Uh, I support the amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Self. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no.

No.

Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested. That vote will be rolled. Does anybody else have an amendment?

Mister Moylan.

Mister Moylan?

Mister Chair, I have amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute and report your amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of substitute.

Or the reading is dispensed with. Mister Moylan, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. A line influence in local governments has the potential to harm our nation. Polls show Americans trust their state and local governments at much higher rates than the federal government. I recall when I was senator on Guam, uh receiving calls, uh after uh some situations that we had with with the CCP. Uh as a senator we addressed the issues, um and we actually received calls. Uh my colleagues in senate back in Guam received calls from uh the c c p agents telling us to kind of lay back it was amazing but that's what they do and um most most recently just last month we learned of um eileen wang a former mayor of arcadia california who pled guilty to acting on behalf of the pr c without registration under fara then last year the new york times published an article reporting on their investigation of the pr c influence It discussed how PRC helped unseat a state senator, got involved in city politics, and has been quietly growing its influence. Now my amendment offers a solution to what is clearly a growing problem. It directs the secretary of state, working with the AG and the homeland security secretary to develop a strategy to eliminate the ability of foreign adversaries to influence, pressure, or threaten non-federal governments. Identifies what our adversaries are targeting and how they exert malign influence, and how the federal government and private sectors are currently identifying and determining bad actors. And additionally, it directs the department to make recommendations on how it can improve that approach. Uh, Mister Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I yield back.

Any further discussion? Mister Meeks, you're recognized.

I support this amendment and I believe that the uh State Department can provide important insight to state, local and tribal and territorial government from foreign influence. I agree with the gentleman that this amendment is a testament to the expertise that the State Department has and why it is worth protecting. And so I ask all of us to uh, I strongly support it and I thank all of the members of Congress, and I yield back the balance of my time on this committee, I should say.

Recognize myself, I believe as hybrid warfare tactics continue to proliferate around the world, it is essential that the State Department works with partner countries to identify and counter novel threats across domains including cyber espionage, weaponized migration and sabotage. They're all important to look at. Uh, I urge support, uh, of this amendment. I thank Representative Moylan for his work on this. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the, uh, amendment offered by Representative Moylan. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chair,

Yes, Mister Moylan.

roll call.

Roll call vote has been requested.

Rick.

We'll roll it till later. I'll tell you what, I'll speak on the next amendments for a while. You can go work with your members and try to get it down to forty. Would you like to?

Well, you can get some of your members to withdraw the amendments.

I'll work on that too. Happy to, happy to work on it, Mister Meeks. All right, who has an amendment at the desk? Mister Moylan.

Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk. Clerk shall re- distribute and report your amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Without objection, further readings dispensed with.

Amendment

Mister Moylan, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And while illicit drugs are not destined to stay in the Pacific island, the impact that they have had on local communities is deeply troubling. The UN stated in May of last year that according to Fiji's Attorney General's office, even school children have become involved in selling drugs. The program aims to ensure that seizure of precursor chemicals do not re-enter production of illicit drugs. There's influx, the influx of Fiji's HIV cases uh with with injecting drugs as the primary cause of transmissions. So what this, what this amendment does, it establishes the Pacific Counter-Nicotics Initiative to fight drug trafficking with our partners in Oceania. And it working, it's working directly with partner countries. And the initiative will create the Pacific Counter-Narcotics Initiative, a US-led program to assist sixteen Pacific nations with drug interdiction efforts, focusing on seizing, destroying, and safely disposing of chemicals used in illegal drug production. Focuses on the environment and law enforcement support. and it aims to reduce environmental harm from hazardous drug-related chemicals by bolstering law enforcement capabilities. For the implementation plan, within ninety days of enactment, the Secretary of State must submit a plan to Congress detailing strategies, benchmarks, and timelines for each participating country. And there's an annual report reporting mandate as well. For three years, annual reports uh to Congress are required detailing the country's progress in chemical seizures, destruction, uh uh statistics, and benchmark compliance. So I urge my colleagues to support and I yield.

Mister Meeks, you wanna be recognized?

I support this amendment. Uh, narcotic trafficking is one of the most serious issues facing the Pacific island countries. Increasingly, they are not only a transit point, but also a destination for illicit drugs, which are a serious problem in their own right and can be a vector for maligned influence. We should work to strengthen civil law enforcement capacity in the Pacific Islands to address this issue. So, I thank Mister Morland again for this amendment. I support it and yield back.

Recognize myself. I also support this amendment to establish a Pacific Narcotics Initiative to build equal partnerships with countries to disrupt the Lissick drug supply chains in the Pacific. The initiative would lead to greater cooperation between the United States and Pacific partners, and help law enforcement agencies better detect, seize, destroy, uh precursor chemicals before they reach our shores, uh something that we've done very well over the last year uh in the Gulf of America. So, a great idea to make sure that that's work that expands to the S- Pacific. Uh in that, any further discussion? Seeing none, The question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Moylan. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mister

Uh

Mister Chair, roll call.

Yes. Roll call vote has been requested. We'll roll it till later. Mister Moylan, do you have another amendment?

Yes, Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall report it and distribute it.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute of

Further reading is

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Active recruitment in Guam and the US territories is an inter is integral uh to the US strategy for the Indo-Pacific. By every metric you will you will not find more patriotic Americans anywhere outside the territories. Guam has the highest enlistment rate anywhere in the US, and has the highest rates of public service as well. Americans in the territories may have skills and backgrounds, and many have skills and background uh and good backgrounds, and similar cultures and languages and experience in geopolitical strategic areas means they have more trust trusted in those communities. In Guam, eighteen percent speak Chamorro, twenty percent speak Philippine language, ten percent uh speak other other languages as well. And in this Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, official languages are Chamorro, Carolinian, English, and a large percentage of Tagalog and Mandarin speakers as well. In American Samoa, most peak uh most people are bilingual, with Samoan closely related to the Polynesian language. Ninety-five percent of Puerto Ricans speak Spanish uh as well, and significant populations And the US Virgin Islands speak Spanish, French, and Creole. So we encourage residents of Guam to have a high, to have high rates of diplomatic engagement through institutional career centers, facilities, faculty, and student organizations to expand awareness of foreign service careers. Uh, geographic challenges include uh limited local candidate poles and limited access to training in hawaii and the pacific territories and expenses uh regarding travel costs so we must we must find ways of getting through significant barriers associated with relocation these high cost of living and limited opportunities for local career growth and the lack of quality service and infrastructure to ensure greater participation My amendment establishes the territorial recruitment program, ensuring the State Department conducts appropriate outreach to the in the territories, leverages digital technology, and collaborates with on the ground efforts to maximize engagement. And, Mister Chair, I'd just like to also uh shout out to a couple of my former interns, Angelo Paul and Juan Sanicholas, both from Guam, who are now member of the Foreign Affairs Office. So, Thank you, Mr. Chair. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by you.

Mr. Meeks, would you like to be recognized?

Yeah, I I support this amendment. We must ensure the foreign service brings insights, expertise and experiences from across our great nation, including the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Nor- of Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. I say thank you to my colleague, Representative more than for his ongoing efforts on to promote a diverse and representative State Department from our islands and our uh districts uh and I thank him for that. Uh I support this and I yield back the balance of my time.

Recognize myself for a moment, I support this amendment as well, which establishes a territorial recruitment program under the Foreign Service Act of nineteen eighty. Uh, this would strengthen the foreign service talent pipeline and give qualified Americans from every part of the nation, including Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and America's Simone, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands the opportunity to serve. Very practical step to improve the workforce and bring valuable expertise into American diplomacy. So thank you again, Mister Moylan, urge my colleagues to support. Any further discussion? Mister Wilson.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, indeed. I wanna uh join in that uh Congressman Moylan uh actually is understating uh how beautiful and how important Guam is for America's security. We should always recognize that Guam is the equivalent of a permanent aircraft carrier, and it's three hours uh by air to Manila, three hours to Taipei, two three hours to Okinawa, three hours to Shanghai. Uh the location is just so strategically located, and then I wanna congratulate Congressman Moylan too, for Anderson Air Force Base being more enhanced than ever, more important than ever. The uh Marines that are uh being uh relocated there, how important that is. And then uh it uh it it really is a contest between Guam and Hawaii, who who has the most beautiful beaches. Uh I'm somewhat um partial to uh Congressman Jim Moylan and former Congressman Madeline Bodio that uh hey Guam is beautiful, what a great territory it is for the American people. And then that the uh native Chamorro people will uh are so uh again patriotic, they will never forget the seventeen hundred Marines that uh in nineteen forty four uh who were were killed as they were trying to and did succeed in liberating Guam. And the Guamanians were the only people of uh of American uh citizenship who were under a Japanese occupation so over and over again uh we should uh really appreciate and recognize as the Congressman uh Moylan has uh so recognized the talents of the people of Guam. I yield back.

Representative yields back. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Moylan. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed say no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. Roll call vote has been requested. We'll roll that to a later time. Mister Issa, you have an amendment at the desk.

I have an amendment to desk.

Clerk shall distribute an report.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment two, the amendment in the nature of receptive.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Eissa, you're recognized.

Thank you, Miss Chairman. This is a narrowly crafted but necessary amendment which provides for administrative uh uh subpoena authority in the case of imminent threats. What the amendment does is it authorizes the Secretary of State to issue narrowly tailored administrative subpoenas for non-content record when responding to credible and imminent threats against diplomats, embassies, their facilities, or protected persons. The authority is limited to emergency situations, excludes communications, content, and includes Department of Justice notification, oversight, and reporting requirements. So I believe that We've made it narrow enough, and yet allow for those situations in which time is essential to prevent such things as attacks on embassies or assassinations of our personnel. With that, I yield.

Mister Meeks, would you like to be recognized?

Real quick, at at this time, and I'd like to talk to the gentleman more, I have to oppose this amendment because, you know, it provides the administrative uh, subpoena authority to the secretary to address imminent threats, and you know, I I think we can agree that the safety of our diplomats is of the utmost importance, but what I'm not clear about uh is uh what limitations there may be on the secretary. So um I'd be happy at some point to talk

If if if the gentleman would yield.

Yeah.

Um you know imminent threats is was chosen because it is a defined situation. Uh i- it is the equivalent for lawyers of exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, uh an actual they have to have uh immediate information of a likely immediate threat, one that does not allow them time to go through an extended process. But more importantly, this is nowhere close to a FISA type situation. This simply says they're able to for example uh call up and say, look we need to know about cell phone activity uh and use an administrative uh uh uh s it's not getting people, it's only getting information, and if you notice, it was specifically non-content records. So, it is limited to, you know, what is the proximity of cell phones that may be of a threat. There's been in in some cases an attempt uh made, where are the people that we believe can be found and tracked. So it is it is extremely limited and that's why we chose a uh something that is recognized in law which is the imminent threat. The same as the law enforcement has significant rights when they're in imminent threat, but not just because they think someone's breaking the law.

Right, wh- why we break for both, so maybe I wanna talk to you a little bit more.

I would appreciate that.

Uh, you bet.

Recognize myself, I support this amendment, it's practical, limited measure that strengthens the State Department's ability to protect American diplomats. It would give the Secretary of State limited

Aye. I have another amendment to ask. Uh, no, I'm happy to take yes. OK, I want a roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested, uh, pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. That will be postponed. Mister Reiss, do you have an amendment at the desk?

I do have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device, amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Reiss, are you recognized?

Thank you, Mister S- uh, Chairman, this is also even more narrow. This is simply a c- s- providing the State Department with, uh, for diplomatic security with Cyber Crime Investigation Authority uh both sides of the aisle here have been uh very concerned and and this simply uh this amendment expands diplomatic security's authority to investigate cyber offenses that it targets state department personnel systems contractors, family members and protected assets and it not only modernizes their ability to look into it but it insures that they can have cooperation and access to the same information with department of justice and f. b. i. Um, a decade ago, cybercrime was something we talked about in a abstract way. Now our diplomats are facing that every single day. And so for that reason, uh, we wanna make sure that that authority, although implied, is implicit to diplomatic security. It doesn't expand their role any more than the roles already, uh, within Department of Justice and, uh, the, uh, FBI. And with that, I'd yield.

Mister Meeks, would you like to be recognized?

Yeah, again, I'm I'm gonna, as of now, speak in opposition to Mister uh, ICE's amendment. On granting authority to diplomatic security to conduct investigations concerning authorized access to the State Department systems. You know, maintaining the security of the State Department's computer network is vital, yet daunting challenge given the Department's presence around the world. But before Congress provides this explicit authority, i think it's necessary to better understand the cyber challenges the department faces as well as the two that both diplomatic security and technology currently have to identify perpetrators then and uh and prevent future attacks so and also you know i think it's important to see what the overlap where there there would be between state and justice departments i think i'd also wanna further just have a conversation with some folks from the State Department so I can be clear I mean and I think that's where some of my um ambiguity is um have they have they asked for this uh authority or

yes yes they have

they have

yes

ok well I I need to be clearer on it because I don't know where it stops where it ends but I'll talk to you little bit more

uh thank you gentlemen

ok you're back

recognize myself in support of this amendment foreign adversaries are actively targeting the State Department, as we all know, with sophisticated cyber attacks that could damage America's credibility, and put our security in jeopardy. That is nothing new. This is a very practical update, strengthens the department's ability to defend against modern cyber threats while maintaining proper inter-agency coordination. I thank Mister Issa for his work on this, urge my colleagues to support. No further discussion. A question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Issa, All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. If any of the chair, the ayes have it,

I'd,

the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I'd ask for the ayes and aes.

Recorded uh recorded vote has been requested. We will roll that until later. Do we have time to do one more or do we need to go off to vote right now?

I have another amendment to make, Mister Chairman.

All right. Clerk shall distribute and report your amendment, and then we will recess for votes.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister IC, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. uh this amendment provides limited authority to diplomatic security to identify uh and assess uh and mitigate inside threat and foreign intelligence threats targeting state department personnel facilities and systems and operations i will tell you that in working in cooperation with the state department i was actually shocked that this was not an implicit authority already in the state department uh it of course recognizes that uh the threats are often foreign nationals working within the state department systems overseas uh much of which is outside uh the purview of the fbi so this is preserving the coordination with the fbi and the intelligence community and and civil liberties while at the same time recognizing that the state department diplomatic service does have the ability and the mandate to do a great many things overseas particularly when dealing with nations such as china russia and iran uh and others who have devoted substantial resources to recruiting insiders for collecting information including personnel working with and for uh the state department for that reason diplomatic security is responsible for protecting the department but lacks a clear statutory authority to deal with many of these modern threats particularly those recruited by countries like that uh without our knowledge but working literally among us it contains coordination and requirement requirements with the fbi and intelligence community so that it implicitly preserve civil liberty protections and existing legal safeguards the authority is focused on prevention not intelligence collecting for its own sake uh bottom line this is something we thought they had we discovered they didn't Uh, they agreed. And, uh, that's the reason I brought this and would urge it yield back.

Mister Meeks, would you like to be recognized?

No, I'm about the same as before. I'll do, I gotta do some homework.

Recognized myself in support of this amendment. Uh, our adversaries again, as we know, are actively targeting State Department personnel through espionage, cyber operations, insider recruitment, a host of other ways. Diplomatic security services already performs many security related functions, but its statutory authorities are less clear. than those of other agencies. This amendment closes a gap while requiring coordination with FBI and in the intelligence community. So I thank you for your work on this, Mister ISA, and I urge my colleagues to support. Uh, there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment uh offered by Mister ISA. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, could I have a recorded vote on that?

Recorded vote will be rolled until a later time, and we will now recess until after Uh, house floor votes. Committee is in recess. Thank you. See you in a bit.

Yep, yep.

Committee will come to order. Mister Meeks, do you have an amendment at the desk?

Yes, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute and report it.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and thirty-four to H R nine zero eight seven.

For the reading suspense, with, Mister Meeks, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I offer an amendment that will help a small number of foreign service officers but will have tremendous impact on their lives. Today, if a foreign service officer is separated from the foreign service she wouldn't be able to file a grievance after her separation. Current law limits the type of grievances for former foreign service officers or their surviving spouse to solely financial issues, such as denial of an allowance. In a recent case, the department sent an email to a private email address that an employee had not used in years. They told him that he would be separated in eight days based on the expiration of his time in class given the department's up and out system. The department had, in fact, miscalculated his time, which should not have expired for at least another year. Yet the Foreign Service Grievance Board, which is responsible for reviewing and resolving cases, found it did not have to hear the grievance of an employee who was given insufficient notice of his separation.

Mm.

What my amendment would simply do, it would allow former members or their survivors to file grievances even if they have been separated, but only if they were previously unaware of the grounds for the grievance. My intention here is to provide a narrow approach to help a small number of people, it will not lead to an increase in time and resources spent by the department litigating cases. It is also wholly within the department's control to determine how many people this will in fact impact. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member. Meeks recognized myself. I oppose this amendment. There is a grievous

Aye.

All those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to.

I ask for a roll call vote.

Recorded vote will be rolled until the end. Mister Meeks, do you have another amendment at the desk?

I do have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall report it and distribute it.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and thirty-five to HR nine zero eight seven offered by Mister Meeks of New York.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Meeks, you're recognized.

I offer an amendment that I believe is very easy for all of my colleagues to support. My amendment requires the Government Accountability Officer to submit a report to this committee outlining the impacts of the reduction in force that was conducted on July eleventh, twenty twenty five. You know, I have requested the State Department for this information since July of twenty twenty five, including most recently in a letter I co-led with Representative Berra and Osinski. My reasoning for submitting this amendment is very simple. We rec- we require such a report to understand the impacts of our foreign or of or to our foreign service. Including a full accounting of the personnel separated, the skills lost, including in critical languages, the impact on core bureaus, the fiscal costs and savings of the RRIFs, and an accounting of the department's use of technology, including AI in connection with the RRIFs. The Trump administration, Secretary Rubio and my Republican colleagues have lauded the reduction in false orders as a core cost savings measure. They say their department is more efficient, that they remove duplicate functions, that they kept the best. But, Mr. Chairman, even when we take the department at its own word in hearings, briefings and meetings, Their accounting of the risks

That's too easy.

is in frequent contradiction. Some say it was about merit. Some say the risks were about removing redundant programs. Other has said it is about efficiency. Regardless of their claims, this committee lacks the transparency that the American people ask for and deserve. So, this simple non-controversial amendment simply requests that the Government Accountability Office conduct a review and provide a report to provide Congress with the answers that the department refuses to answer. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Reag- Member Meeks. I recognize myself in opposition of the amendment. Uh I believe that we have offered as Republicans to a compromised version uh of this report during our State Department reauthorization and again during this mark-up um there was not a desire to work on that in that way uh so I do oppose the amendment and seeing no further discussion uh the question now occurs on the amendment of ranking member Meeks all those in favor say aye

Aye.

all those opposed no no opinion of the chair the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

I ask for a roll.

Roll call vote has been requested and that will be rolled until later. Mister Meeks, do you have another amendment?

I do not.

OK.

We'll do a pause for a moment.

We will pause for a couple of minutes.

So tell me when I can disappear, once they've already gone.

OK. Mister Keating, do you have an amendment at the desk?

Yes, I have an amendment to the desk, uh amendment number one O seven.

Clerk shall distribute it and report it.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and seven to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Mister Keating.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Keating, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment moves the National Nuclear Risk Reduction Center to the Inter- International Security Affairs. Under Secretary, rather than the Intelligence Research Bureau of the State Department. It restores the NERCS uh, you know, to its proper place in the department. This identical amendment previously passed by a voice vote in last year's state authorization mark-up, and I hope it'll pass as well on a recorded vote. Uh, I support this amendment and will yield back my time.

Representative yields back. Any further discussion? Recognize myself for a moment. I support this amendment. which codifies the National and Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, or NR NNRRC with the State Department. National and Nuclear Risk Reduction Center has operated quietly and effectively for decades managing around the clock government to government communications uh it also enables modernization and it maintains the requirement to have Mandarin language capabilities to stay prepared ahead of China's expanding nuclear arsenal. Uh this is very common sense, I thank you for your work on it, uh any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Keating. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. If any of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I request a roll call.

Recorded vote has been requested. And that will be rolled until later. Mister Keating, do you have an amendment?

Yes, uh, Mister Chairman, I have an amendment. First of all, thank you for your support of that amendment, and uh, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment number one ten.

Clerk shall distribute it and report it.

Amendment two, the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Number one hundred and ten to H R nine zero eight seven, Auster offered by Mr.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Keating, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary and the Administration should appoint a special envoy for Northern Ireland to promote US interest in Northern Ireland including peace and reconciliation, uh the Good Friday Agreement, uh economic uh uh advancement uh and deepening US economic ties in particular in the region. The amendment was considered an unblocked package uh with the state authorization mark-up but did not receive a roll call vote. I hope all of my colleagues will again support this amendment and roll call vote. Now yield back the balance of my time.

Mister Keating yields back. Any further discussion? Representative Jacobs.

The United States has long played a central role in promoting peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the protection and

Recognize myself. I support this provision, which encourages the Secretary of State to consider appointing a special envoy to promote the United States' interest in Northern Ireland and deepen commercial ties in the region. Uh, great idea. Thank you for your work on this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Keating. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I uh request a roll call vote.

That roll call vote will be rolled until later. Mister Keating, do you have an amendment at the desk?

I have amendment at the desk uh number one zero eight.

Clerk shall distribute an report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number

Further reading is

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is uh the securing global telema- telecommunications act. It asserts that the US must work with emerging economies and developing nations to bolster global telecommunications security by providing safe, secure and reliable telecommunications infrastructure. Specifically, this amendment requires the US to develop a coordinated strategy to promote the use of secure telecommunications infrastructure in partner nations, ensuring secure mobile networks, proper financing mechanisms, strengthening industry partnerships,

Absolutely.

and developing an- the adaptation of advanced technologies. Thank you, thank you, Stephanie. I wanna thank in particular

Thank you.

Thank you.

uh uh Chair Young Kim, Yeah. who has cosponsored this underlying bill. This amendment is was considered in the unblocked package during Thank you, Stephanie. the state authorization market but did not receive a roll call vote. I hope that my colleagues will again support this amendment in a roll call and I yield back to balance my time.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself for a moment. This amendment will help ensure the United States remains internationally dominant for the industries of the future as Chinese government affiliated companies, such as Huawei and ZTE work to embed themselves within vital infrastructure in both economic and security sectors across the globe. It is essential that State Department works to alert our partners and our allies about the risks associated with these risky pr- procurements. So I appreciate your work on this. I urge my colleagues to support. Uh, any further discussion? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote. Thank you Mister Chairman. now I have an amendment uh number one zero nine at the desk.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and nine to HR nine zero eight seven, offered by Mister Keating.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment expressly prohibits Russia's participation in the G seven or any other or any reconstitution of the G eight that includes the Russian Federation. This amendment is based on a bipartisan underlying bill co-sponsored by fourteen other members of Congress including Republicans and Democrats on this committee. As I said during the state authorization markup last year, Russia has made it clear time and time again they're not a true partner of the United States. Simply put, Russia is not our friend. community of nations built on shared values of democracy, accountability, and the defense of international security. Russia's actions are not reflective of a nation that deserves to be part of the G seven. Allowing Russia back into the G seven, or expanding it to a G eight that includes Russia, would normalize and reward their aggression, particularly the aggression of Ukraine. During this state authorization mark-up in September, this amendment passed by a voice vote with the chairman's support. However, it's come to my attention that the House of Leadership is looking for roll calls on certain measures for procedural reasons. I therefore hope the members will again support this amendment in a roll call vote. Thank you. Now you, Mike, time back.

Thank you, sir.

Any members' recognition? Representative Jacobs.

Thank you. I support this amendment. Until Russia ends its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine and ends its reckless and destabilizing behavior in Europe, Africa and elsewhere around the world, the United States should oppose any efforts to bring Russia back into the fold. This legislation has passed

Recognize myself. Uh, actually I have no comments for this. Uh, any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Keating. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.

Recorded vote has been requested. Uh, and it will be rolled until later. Mister Keating. Do you have one more amendment at the desk?

I do, thank you, Mister Chairman. I have amendment uh zero one zero six at the desk.

Clerk's office.

Clerk shall distribute an report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and six to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Mister Keating of Massachusetts. At the appropriate place, insert the following.

Are the readings dispensed with? Mister Keating, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The amendment I'm offering prohibits any United State government entities and agencies from

recognizing Russia claims of sovereignty over any portion of the Ukrainian territory. This is in alignment with, this is in alignment with decades of bipartisan US foreign policy, echoed as far back as nineteen thirty-two in the Stimson Doctrine, uh refusing to recognize territorial claims seized by force. In nineteen forty, the US and allied nations adhered to the Wells' declaration, refusing to recognize the Soviet Union's occupation and uh annexation, of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. We remained consistent in our policy until these three nations regained their dependence in the nineteen nineties. We must hold firm in our convictions once again. As a Congress, we must stand up to Russian aggression and refuse to recognize any claim of Ukraine's sovereign territory. Failure to do so would reward Russia's aggression and signal to other nations in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere that the use of military force is a legitimate tool for conquering other countries and shifting borders. This amendment passed by a voice vote in the state authorization mark-up last year, including with the chairman's support, and I hope members will again support it with a roll call vote today.

Any other members seek recognition? Recognize myself? Are you seeking recognition? Recognize Representative Jacobs?

Thank you. I support this amendment. US policy should be clear and unambiguous, We do not recognize any of Russia's illegitimate claims to sovereign Ukrainian territory, not Crimea, not the Donbass, and not any other territory Russia has taken by force since its renewed full scale invasion began. Full stop. I yield back.

Recognize myself, I support this amendment, which makes it the policy of the United States not to recognize the Russian Federation's claim of sovereignty over any portion of the internationally recognized, territory of Ukraine. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, I uh request a roll call recorded vote,

You're welcome.

and thank you for uh taking me out of turn and for for this markup in moving forward.

You're welcome. We'll recommend we'll take up that roll call vote later. Thank you. Uh, mister, I said, do you have

I've

Sure. Clerk shall distribute and report your amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device.

Further readings dispensed with? Mister Reissa, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment creates a statutory framework allowing the Secretary of State to authorize qualified foreign protective service officers to carry firearms while conducting official protective duties in the United States. It establishes training and accountability, background check uh for this uh retrocessy uh and public safety. This in fact is simply expanding to these trained men and women, uh, who protect our diplomats, exactly the same thing that every sheriff, every policeman, and all our federal officers already have. In the United States, law enforcement is able to travel from state to state, in jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Well, uniquely, our diplomats find themselves having to make a switch when they come back to the United States. Uh this is both clumsy and uh quite frankly uh cost prohibitive in many cases, and it gives up the level of security to someone who may not even recognize or know or have a familiarity with the protected person. For that reason, I believe it streamlines, saves money, and it standardizes our diplomatic protective service to be the same as substantially all other law enforcement and with that, I urge support and yield back.

Any further discussion? Representative Jacobson.

I oppose this amendment as it is unnecessary and the diplomatic security is already authorized to provide protection to foreign dignitaries. I yield back.

Could the gentlelady yield? You guys can talk if you want.

Okay, great.

Uh, I appreciate what the gentlelady said, and uh the, she's correct that the diplomatic protective service can in fact protect foreign nationals, but it lacks the US situation, as you probably know, the secret service uniform is who protects diplomats here in the DC area, but it's in fact our diplomatic service, for example, with an ambassador, as they come back to the United States that we're referring to. Uh, I hope the staff can make that small correction.

We'll look into it.

I thank the gentlelady.

Recognize myself, I support this amendment. Uh, as we know, foreign diplomatic security personnel are permitted to carry firearms in the United States when they're protecting visiting heads of state, and other senior officials. This amendment does not expand that practice, it codifies it into statute and gives the State Department much clearer authority to regulate monitor and control how that exactly will take place so I thank you for your work on this Mister Ice, I urge my colleagues to support. Uh, seeing no further discussion. Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Issa. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Depending on the chair,

No.

the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

I'd I'd ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

We will roll that recorded vote until the end. Uh, Mr. Issa, do you have an amendment?

I have an amendment to desk, Mr. Chairman.

Or shall I distribute and report your amendment?

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mr. Issa, you're recognized.

thank you mr. chairman this amendment directs the department of state to assess whether continuous vetting uh or enhanced screening programs could improve security for locally employed staff working in us embassies and consulates overseas the study we believe will show that the with current technology this continuous vetting would both improve the security and shorten periods of time for the elevating of individuals the uh foreign service employees more than fifty thousand locally employed staff uh in united states embassies and consulates around the world many have access to facilities information systems and sensitive operations earlier today one of my amendments specifically talked about cyber security this authority would in fact give us the uh better ability to keep uh uh a watchful eye on people who may in fact have been compromised and may in fact be conducting cyber security on behalf of foreign nationals. Today, we only do a uh a very retrospective or periodic assessment. Those assessments are usually vetting when someone comes on board, uh or when they're looking to take an additional uh position. That simply isn't good enough in a day in day in which today's vetted person might no longer be uh available. Again, we're only authorizing this ability, we're not mandating continuous vetting, so for that I would ask that this authority be uh granted in this amendment, and I yield back.

Miss Jacobs, you seek your recognition.

Yes, thank you. I support this amendment and look forward to reviewing the State Department's assessment about whether such continuous vetting is feasible. I yield back.

Any further discussion? Recognize myself. I support this amendment. Local embassy staff are essential to State Department They often have significant access to US facilities, information systems and personnel, but are generally reinvestigated only on a periodic basis rather than continuously monitored. This amendment directs the department to study whether more modern vetting practices could be better identi identify insider threats, foreign intelligence recruitment and other security risks. Thank you for your work on this, Mister Issa, I urge my colleagues to support. Question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Issa, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, all those opposed no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is reported.

Miss Chairman, I'd ask for a recorded vote.

That recorded vote will be rolled until the end. Mister Issa, do you have another amendment?

Miss Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk shall distribute and report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, number one hundred and thirty-three to H R nine zero eight.

Further reading is dispensed with. Mister Issa, you're recognized.

Mister, Mister Chairman, this is a, a very uh clear statutory authority being granted to the diplomatic security personnel to participate and in support of federal, state, local, tribal and territorial, and international task force and joint operation. It clarifies the department's ability to share personnel, resources, uh, and support with partner agencies when investigating, for example, passport fraud, cybercrime, human trafficking, traditional crimes, and threats to diplomats. For that reason, We believe this, this is a long overdue ability to formalize the ability for these task forces to join such organizations as the FBI, HSA, the Marshal, the Secret Service, the State Department, and where appropriate local law enforcement. This amendment makes clear the authority of diplomatic security uh personnel to participate in task forces, something that is currently not clear in the law. I would ask this uh amendment be considered because it does not create a new arrest authority or a federalized state or local office equivalent. It simply allows federal agencies to work together more effectively against shared threats.

Miss Jacobs, you're recognized.

Thank you. I oppose this amendment. Before voting on an amendment to authorize such broad authority, this committee should want should require further information about why this task force and joint operations authority is operationally necessary for necessary for diplomatic security to complete its mission this could be abused to utilize things that we do not want diplomatic security to be engaging in uh so i oppose and urge all my colleagues to do the same and i go back

recognize myself i support this amendment this is a practical measure that improves inter-agency cooperation and leverages diplomatic security's specialized capabilities without creating new programs or authorizing new spending. Uh, so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, would you yield for just a moment?

Yes, please.

Uh, as the author of the amendment, I wanna make it clear it doesn't, it is not task force creating authority, but in fact simply allowing the uh diplomatic security to join task forces as an equal partner and yield back.

Question now occurs, and the amendment offered by Representative Eisell. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Opinion of the Chair.

No.

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Uh, with that I would ask for a recorded vote.

Recorded vote has been requested. Uh, and that will be rolled until later. Mister Issa, do you have another amendment?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment to task number one thirty five.

Or shall I distribute it and report it? Or the rating is dispensed with. Mister Issa, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment modernizes personnel authorities within the diplomatic security by allowing qualified security personnel to maintain operational status and remain available for emergency response, even when serving in leadership, training, policy, or inter-agency assignments. It also authorizes the secretary to designate additional qualified personnel to perform certain protective and security functions when operational needs require it. Diplomatic security agencies freque or agents frequently rotate into leadership, policy, embassy management, training, and inter-agency assignments. The federal government spends years and millions of dollars developing high trained personnel. Current law does not sign- uh sufficiently account for how for how modern law enforcement agencies manage trained personnel throughout their careers. This amendment uh, trained personnel remain available for emergency response in crisis operation. It improves surge capacity as a result, particularly in the situations such as embassy evacuations, hostage incidents, uh, natural disasters, and secure uh, security emergencies. It does not create a new law enforcement authority. It simply ensures department can fully utilize all of its available personnel, that is already paid for, trained, and are otherwise available. We should not lose access to trained diplomatic security professionals simply because they accept temporarily other assignments. And with that, I urge support and yield back.

Representative Jacobs, do you seek recognition?

I do.

Mister Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I'm concerned that this language would export the important work of investigating a legal passport and visa issuance, as well as document fraud. from diplomatic special agents. If we need more special agents, then we should have a discussion on how we should properly resource the department to ensure we're safeguarding our country, not outsource this. I yield back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment. This amendment gives the department greater flexibility to utilize qualified federal personnel for protective and security missions, improving surge capacity and operational readiness during crisis and high-threat events thank you for your work on this I uh Mister ISA uh any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Isall. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no.

No.

Penny, the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Let her ask for it.

Sure, roll call, let's do it.

Thank you.

That roll call vote will be rolled until the end. Mister Reiss, do you have another amendment?

I have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chairman.

Clerk shall distribute and report that amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Device. Amendment to the amendment

Thank you, Mister Chairman. State Department rewards program modernization. In fact, this amendment modernizes State Department's reward authorities by expanding them beyond terrorism to include cyber-attacks, election interference, hostage-taking, kidnapping, transnational organized crime, war crimes, and attacks on US diplomatic personnel. In short, it recognizes that the rewards program has left off some of the most important and critical areas in which we want to recognize the good work of of individuals, whether it's cyber attacks or in fact hostage taking. It also allows rewards for information leading to identification, location, uh, disri description, arrest, or conviction of threat actors while uh, streamlining the program's administration and protecting sensitive operational files. The Rewards for Justice program was created to help identify and capture high-value terrorists. Today's threats incre- increasingly include cyber actors, election interference networks, trad- uh, traditional criminal networks, even organized crime, and hostile foreign governments. The amendment updates the rewards program to reflect modern threats. It allows rewards for information leading to an identification of those, uh, uh, arrested or convicted of cyber crimes, kidnapping, election interference actors, others threatening US national security. The rewards program is one of the most cost-effective national security co- tools available to the United States. A single source can provide information that prevents an attack, disrupts a cyber operation, helps locate American hostages. The amendment streamlines administration while maintaining oversight protections. Bottom line, if we can offer rewards for terrorists, we should be able to offer rewards for cyber actors, kidnappers, foreign operators threatening Americans here today. I urge support and yield back.

Miss Jacobs, you seek recognition.

I do.

I oppose this amendment. While I support the State Department's rewards program as an important tool to go after criminal activity and advance national security I'm concerned that these changes to the rewards program will damage the credibility of the program. Prohibiting the rewards program from being used to prevent acts of serious violations of international humanitarian law is a problem that I'm concerned with it narrows this uh in as it and will damage the overall integrity of the rewards program. So while I oppose this amendment, I would be open to working with the majority to find a pathway forward to streamline management of the rewards program and provide the State Department greater autonomy over the rewards program. I yield back.

Recognize myself in support. The current rewards authorities were largely designed for a post-nine eleven counterterrorism environment. This amendment updates the program to address address today's threats from cyber attacks and foreign election interference to attacks on US personnel. Thank you for your work on this, Mr. Issa. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Issa. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no.

No.

Depending on the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.

Chairman, I'd ask for a recorded vote.

Recorded vote will be rolled until the end. Mr. Issa, do you have another amendment?

Chairman, I have one more uh two more amendments at the desk.

Mr. Issa, you are recognized. Or I'm sorry,

I

the clerk shall distribute and report the amendment.

The amendment has been distributed by Electronic Devoice. device amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number one hundred and thirty seven to hr nine zero eight seven on

away for the reading mister ice you're recognized

thank you mr. chairman what the amendment does in short is it extends through september thirtieth of twenty twenty eight the passport surcharge that funds implementation of the western hemisphere travel initiative in short if we don't do it we're going to defund an important program The surcharge supports secure travel documents, traveler identity verification systems, and border security programs that help prevent fraud and insure travelers entering the United States, possess secure, reliable identification. The amendment simply extends an existing passport passport surcharge through twenty twenty eight. The surcharge conti- will continue to fund a program that was begun after nine eleven, that if it were allowed to expire would represent a a to the detriment of um american security and in fact would reduce the ability of people to enter freely to the united states lead to uh a greater uh passport fraud and inability to identify it this amendment does not create a new fee it simply extends an existing mechanism that is already worked uh for uh almost twenty five years congress should not allow this initiative to lapse at a time when uh transnational crime human smuggling and document fraud is in fact still a serious concern this amendment preserves funding for a critical program that has done us well since uh the uh twenty five years since nine eleven and costs the taxpayers nothing i'd earn support and yield back

representative jacobs you seek recognition

i do I support this amendment as it is consistent with bipartisan extensions. I yield back.

Recognize myself. I support this amendment to extend an existing State Department authority to retain passport fees for an additional two years. Uh, any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Eisel. Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Um, Mr. Chairman, not asked for recorded vote.

That will be rolled until the end.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh, chair, the clerk shall distribute and report the amendments.

Amendment number two fifty-one.

The amendment has been distributed by electronic device. Amendment two, the amendment

Are the readings dispensed with? Mister Reissler, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important provision that enables the Secretary of State to fold in, reorganize, or in fact transfer functions previously done by USAID. In the twenty-five years that I have served in Congress, I have seen the value of many of these programs. But I have also seen that there was a separation between the programs and the management. Currently, this is, these, both these programs are effectively run by the Secretary of State. But they are currently still under a series of different laws and funding mechanisms. We, this amendment asks for and believes that the best goal is to fully reorganize recognizing that some of these programs should be shed but many of these programs are critical they need to be uh kept and if we can reduce duplicate programs uh within the department of state create a single accountability that works to our benefit it ensures though that something that is important to me the usaid functions are better aligned with our foreign policy objectives by bringing them under the state department's improving strategic coordination of foreign assistance programs. We know that we've been targeting waste. We know that many of the programs were wasteful, some of them outdated. But it doesn't change the fact that many of them were critical, useful, and in fact, uh, have, uh, either been reactivated or in the process of doing so. I believe that we have always had a need for these aid programs to be effective, to help people around the world be able to either learn to fish, or in fact have clean drinking water, so they can do the rest of the programs to help developing their countries. America has led the world in foreign aid, including under USAID, but we have also developed a hodgepodge of programs, loan programs, grant programs, Uh, and many of them are not just hard to understand in state, many of them are in the Department of War, some of them in other agencies. This is a large first step in consolidating under the Secretary of State's authority the ability to do that which is state. Although not within our jurisdiction, it would be my goal to encourage the rest of Congress to find ways to get rid of the duplicate programs or the confusing morass, of other programs and hopefully put them all under one leadership. Until we do that, the least we can do is make sure that the programs, popularly and historically known as USAID, be reorganized and made available efficiently as soon as possible. And I urge support and yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Recognize Representative Jacobs in support of your amendment.

Uh

Um.

You could give me just a little bit of support.

I oppose this amendment.

Oh, my mistake.

Yes. Um, I oppose this amendment, which would codify the abolition of USAID and permanently transfer its authorities to the State Department. The amendment is flawed in both concept and execution. First of all, I have serious doubts about the State Department's ability to manage foreign assistance under Secretary Rubio's leadership. To date, Secretary Rubio has allowed ten million dollars of family planning commodities to go to waste fired hundreds of his own staff without cause and arbitrarily terminated thousands of foreign assistance programs resent resulting in as many as one million preventable deaths last year I know that the majority is going to try and cherry pick instances of foreign assistance they didn't like we can find instances of foreign assistance we don't like either but that is not the point the point is that we need foreign assistance and nothing that's occurred over the past eighteen months provides confidence that the State Department is capable of taking over the important work of USAID. I think there is an important conversation we ha- need to have around how to reform US foreign assistance to make sure um that it works and is as efficient and gets to where it needs to be as best as possible. But this amendment is a sledgehammer um and uh does not do what uh that does not do that uh and instead just guts any of our ability to do this. and gives it to a department that again has had no actual success in delivering on our foreign assistance needs over the past year and a half. With that, I yield back.

Recognize myself to cherry pick the bountiful harvest of things, uh, that USAID was doing that I absolutely hate. So I'm proud to back this overdue reform, uh, consolidating foreign assistance under state department, uh, cutting out duplication and bureaucratic nonsense, and putting every program under one clear chain of command. uh to cherry pick some of those things that i hated that was going on uh over three million for being lgbtq in the caribbean you're correct here i go it's a long list like i said a bountiful harvest of things to cherry pick here uh one million to support french speaking lgbtq groups in west africa and central africa uh i've spoken before many times about drag shows in ecuador and transgender operas plays musicals things like that uh of course there was also an lgbtq aye All those opposed, no.

No.

Penny the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Mister Chairman, a recording vote?

Recorded vote has been requested, that will be rolled until later. Mister, I see you are complete with amendments, I believe?

Um, I can find no more at the desk.

Good. Representative Biggs, do you have an amendment?

Um, Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my previously offered amendment number sixty one.

Without objection? So ordered.

And, Mr. Chairman, I have a new amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall distribute and report your amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute number sixty-two to H R nine zero eight seven offered by Miss Biggs of South Carolina at the appropriate place, insert the following. Section Veterans' Preference Framework, sense of Congress. The Department of State should appropriately recognize military experience that is relevant to diplomatic service and should award additional Hiring register points to eligible veteran applicants based on the factors described in subsection B. B, veterans' preference. The Secretary of State shall award not fewer than the following additional hiring register points to veteran applicants, whose character of dis- discharge or service was under conditions other than dishonorable, including honorable, general, under honorable conditions, or other qualifying discharges. One, combat deployments, one point. Overseas non- two, overseas non-combatant military service, point seven five points. Three, non-combatant military service, point five points. C, construction. Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish any veteran's preference otherwise available under law.

Thank you for reading the whole thing.

Course.

Representative Biggs, you are recognized.

The original provision was an important step forward, but it left too much to discretion. It directed the secretary of state to award additional hiring points to veteran applicants without specifying exactly how many. Veterans deserve better than a framework that depends on whoever happens to be sitting in the chair at any given moment. This amendment fixes that. It establishes a formal sense of Congress that the State Department should recognize military experience relevant to diplomatic service, putting this body on record with clear, unambiguous intent. And it replaces the discretionary framework with concrete, mandatory minimum point values. one full point for combat deployments, three quarters of a point for overseas non-combat service, and one half point for non-combat service. Mister Chairman, the difference between this amendment and the original prov- provision is simple. We are moving from guidance to guarantee. Our veterans earned that guarantee and it is our job to deliver it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to the amendment and I yield back.

Representative Jacobs, do you seek recognition?

Very good.

M- Mr. Chairman? I do s- I seek recognition.

Yes, Mister Eisen.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having further studied this, but it's the first time I've heard the amendment to the amendment. I have concerns any time points are given for less than an honorable discharge. As you know and I know, uh, general discharge is, although technically not, for bad conduct, i cannot name a time in our lifetimes combined in which a general discharge did not reflect some serious failure during the service uh and often lower discharges or elevated after thirty days so although i will support the amendment uh at this time i will continue to suggest strongly that these points only be granted to honorable discharges all the rest of the provisions including overseas combat time and the like seem very reasonable. I thank the gentlemen yield back.

Representative yields back. Do you see? No? Recognize myself. Members of this committee who served in uniform helped develop the framework in this amendment drawing on their own experience to identify the types of military service most relevant to diplomatic work this amendment simply recognizes that many what many of us already know military service develops skills and experiences that are directly applicable to foreign service. Combat deployment. foreign service, overseas service is foreign service. Military experience provides valuable leadership, cultural awareness, operational expertise, and experience working in complex international environments, and often with foreign members of service. This amendment does not waive any hiring requirements, guarantee anyone a job, or create special uh hiring pathway. It awards additional hiring register points uh for qualified veterans in recognition of their various services to this country. Uh, importantly, it does not diminish any veterans' preference already available under law, and ensures that military service is appropriately valued in the foreign service hiring process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Biggs. All those in favor say aye.